CRL.RP/373/2026 of SRI BASAVARAJ Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 15 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and also learned HCGP for respondent/State.

3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the trial Court are that on 06.09.2014 at 10.45 a.m., the revision petitioner was riding Yamaha RX motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-EG-5111 and was travelling on MVIT College main road from north to south in a rash and negligent manner. The revision petitioner all of a sudden turned his vehicle from left to right in the same road and

HC-KAR

hit the bike bearing number KA-43-G-4805 which was driven by deceased Nataraja and P.W.1 was the pillion rider. Due to the said accident, deceased Nataraja sustained grevious head injury and died at the spot and P.W.1 sustained grevious injuries in the accident. The police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of injured witness who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle and considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC and maximum sentence of 1 year awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304A with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In respect of offence under Section 279, imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine amount, ordered to undergo sentence for 10 days and in respect of offence under Section 338 is concerned, 6 months punishment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional 10 days. The same is challenged before the

HC-KAR

appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.15003/2025. The appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the same and no modification. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

4. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error relying upon the evidence of injured witnesses and also counsel would submit that particularly the sketch map at Ex.P7 is not clear and inaccurate document and that the same fails to depict the presence of other vehicles on the road and the same was relied upon by the trial Court. As such, it requires interference.

6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also P.W.3 is very clear and they are not the interested witnesses as contended by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the trial Court considering P.W.5 as an eyewitness. The injured witness is P.W.1 and

HC-KAR

having considered the eyewitness's evidence, the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any error.

7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State, also taking note of the eyewitness's evidence as well as the injured witness who was the pillion rider who categorically deposed with regard to negligence on the part of revision petitioner and having taken note of the fact that other than the injured witness as well as eyewitness P.W.1 evidence was also taken note of it. However, at this juncture, counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the incident was taken place on 06.09.2014 and request this Court that instead of sending the revision petitioner for sentence, family of the deceased may be compensated by imposing the fine amount, having taken note of the said submission and also the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court

HC-KAR

rendered in the case of MAHADEVANNA D.M. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER passed in SLP (Crl.)No.4563/2022 dated 18.05.2026, wherein it is held that while considering the similar set of facts in a case of BMTC driver, imposed fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, payable towards compensation to the family of the deceased. But in the case on hand, the revision petitioner is a courier boy and not having permanent source of income. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of sentence since it is only an accident and not an intentional act and the same was taken place more than a decade and already 12 years has been elapsed from the date of accident. Hence, this Court felt that the compensation would meet the ends of justice and as such, the conviction and sentence has to be modified by ordering for the compensation to the victim family. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 279 of IPC does not arise and the same merges with sentence ordered under Section 304A of IPC.

HC-KAR

In view of discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

I. Revision petition is allowed in part.

II. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is modified directing the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-before the trial Court within 6 weeks. If he fails to deposit the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within 6 weeks, the petitioner shall undergo the imprisonment of 1 year as ordered by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and Section 338 of IPC.

III. On deposit of the amount before the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to secure the parents of the deceased and pay the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- each on proper identification, if both are alive and if any one is alive pay Rs.3,80,000/ in entirety.

HC-KAR

IV. The remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall vest with the State. V. The accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40