Karnataka High Court
D S Devaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 829 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
D S DEVARAJ
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE No.48, 2ND MAIN ROAD
JAIMARUTHI NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU CITY - 560 096.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA AND:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE
HASSAN DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE
AND ORDER DATED 28.6.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA) IN CRL.A.No.46/2017 IN CONFIRMING
THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN
C.C.No.590/2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
CRL.RP No. 829 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment dated 28.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.46/2017
by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan
sitting at Channarayapatna wherein the judgment of
conviction dated 19.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.590/2012
by the II Additional Civil and Sessions Judge,
Channarayapatna convicting the petitioner for offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity) has
been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
-State.
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
03.10.2011 at about 3.00p.m., on Channarayapatna -
Bengaluru National Highway -48 near Vadagal,the
petitioner -accused drove Car bearing No.KA.01-MA-1415
in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to
the motor cycle of deceased Shivakumar bearing No.KA-
50-H-2999 and as result he sustained injuries and
subsequently succumbed to injuries.
4. P.W.1 is relative of the deceased has filed
complaint. The police after investigation have filed charge
sheet against the petitioner -accused for aforesaid
offences. The prosecution in order to prove charge has
examined witnesses as P.W.1 to 7 and got marked
documents as Ex.P1 to 10. The statement of the accused
has been recorded as required under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after hearing arguments on
both sides and appreciating evidence on records has
convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The petitioner has been
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable
under Section 304A of IPC and simple imprisonment for a
period of 06 months and fine of Rs.500/- for offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The petitioner has
challenged the said judgment of conviction before the
Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.46/2017 and said appeal came
to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction
and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. The said
judgment has been challenged by the petitioner in this
Criminal Revision Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner -accused
would contend that P.W.1 who is complainant, eye witness
to the incident is brother in law of the deceased and he is
interested witness and therefore, his testimony cannot be
relied on. He further submits that another eye witness -
P.W.7 has not supported the case of the prosecution and
he turned hostile. The sketch -Ex.P7 indicate that one
side road is under repair and other side of road has been
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
used by travelers on both sides. P.W.7 has stated that
driver of the car i.e. the petitioner -accused who was
driving it slowly. It indicates that the petitioner was not
driving his car in rash and negligent manner. The
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubts that
the petitioner drove his case in rash and negligent manner
and caused the accident. Inspite of that the trial Court has
convicted the petitioner and the Appellate Court has
confirmed the conviction. With these he prayed to allow
the Criminal Revision Petition and acquit the petitioner.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent -State would support the reasons assigned by
the trial Court and the Appellate Court. It is further
submitted that P.W.1 is eye witness who has specifically
stated the manner in which accident took place and even
though P.W.1 is relative of the deceased, there is nothing
brought on record to disbelieve his testimony. On
considering the sketch -Ex.P7 and place of accident on the
road, it clearly demonstrates rash and negligent driving of
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
the car by the petitioner -accused. With these he prayed
for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition.
7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records.
8. The accident has taken place on 03.10.2011 at
about 3.00p.m., on a national highway -48. Ex.P7 is
sketch of the scene of offence. On perusal of the said
sketch it is clear that the accident has taken place on the
left side of the road on which the deceased was riding his
motor cycle and it is on the right side of the road on which
the accused was driving his car. Ex.P2 -spot mahazar
indicate that width of the said road is 22ft and spot is
situated 6ft from left side edge of the road. Considering
the said aspect it is clear that the car which was moving
from Bengaluru towards Channarayapatna went on wrong
side i.e., on its right side and dashed to the motor cycle.
P.W.1 is eye witness to the incident and he has specifically
stated that he has seen the accident when he was riding
his auto rickshaw at a distance of 20mtrs and Indica car
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
came on right side and dashed to the motor cycle of the
deceased. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross
examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve his testimony. On
perusing of Ex.P7 -sketch, the bike was found at distance
of 50 ft from the spot and car stopped at distance of 60 ft
from the spot and that itself indicate the speed of the car.
The Motor Vehicle Inspector report -Ex.P5 indicate that
five damages to the car and they are all on its front side
and even wind screen glass was found damaged. The
deceased was found with ten injuries and the doctor who
conducted post-mortem examination has opined that the
death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
multiple injuries sustained.
9. Considering all these aspects, the prosecution
has clearly established that the accident has occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the car by the petitioner.
P.W.7 is inmate of the car of the petitioner and driver of
the case was friend of his son in law. Therefore, it is
natural for P.W.7 to support the driver of the car and
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
therefore, he turned hostile. The learned Magistrate
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
properly appreciating the evidence on record has rightly
convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The Appellate Court re-
appreciating evidence on record has rightly affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by
the trial Court.
10. The petitioner was aged 29 years as on the date
of incident. The accident took place in the year 2011 i.e.,
15 years ago. The petitioner has undergone trial for 14
years. Now the petitioner is aged about 43 years. It is
submitted that the petitioner is having wife and two minor
children and he has to look after them.
11. Considering the said aspect, sentence requires
to be modify for simple imprisonment for a period of one
day till raising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,50,000/-
(rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC and fine of
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
Rs.5,000/- (rupees Five Thousand only) for offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Out of the fine
amount a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (rupees One Lakh Forty
Thousand only) has to be paid to Sri Raju father of the
deceased -Shivakumar as provided under Section 357 of
Cr.P.C.
12. In the result, the following
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii) The order of conviction for offence punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is affirmed.
iii) While affirming the conviction of the petitioner -
accused for offence punishable under Section
304A of IPC, the sentence imposed by the trial
Court is modified to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one day till raising of the Court
with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for period of two months.
iv)While affirming the conviction for offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the
sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified as
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07
days.
v) Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-
(rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand only) has to be
paid to Sri Raju father of the deceased -
Shivakumar as provided under Section 357 of
Cr.P.C.
vi) The petitioner -accused has to surrender
voluntarily before the trial Court before
commencement of Court hours to serve the order
of imprisonment for a period of one day till raising
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21815
HC-KAR
the Court and has to deposit the fine amount
prior to surrender.
vii) The trial Court has to secure Sri Raju father
of the deceased -Shivakumar for disbursement of
amount of the compensation. If the said Raju -
father of the deceased is not available or not
alive, other legal representatives of the deceased
-Shivakumar are entitled for said amount of
compensation.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
