MANJUNATH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA JAVALI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100443 OF 2023


(397 CR.PC/438 BNSS)

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA JAVALI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. AGADI,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-581207
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHANDEKAR D. ANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 580011,
(THROUGH POLICE STATION ANNIGERI)
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP.)











ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

Digitally signed by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.12 16:15:49
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE
COURTS BELOW AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.27/2022 DATED
26.10.2023 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT DHARWAD CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.389/2019, PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAVALGUND, DATED 10.02.2022, FOR

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304A, OF
IPC AND UNDER SECTION 134(a)(b) READ WITH SECTION 187
OF M.V.ACT AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER AND
ORDER TO REFUND THE FINE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONER, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

ORAL ORDER
The accused being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment dated 26.10.2023, passed by IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short ‘First
Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.27/2022,
dismissing the appeal preferred by this accused,
confirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.02.2022, passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Navalgund (for short ‘trial Court’) in
C.C.No.389/2019, whereby the accused/petitioner has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
279, 304A of Indian Penal Code 1860, (for short IPC) and
under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of Motor

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


Vehicles Act (for short M.V.Act,) has preferred the present
revision petition.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on
10.03.2015 at 04:15 p.m., the accused drove the vehicle
i.e. Tata Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/C-
1101 from Gadag to Hubballi and near Annigeri Road as he
drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/ER-
0962, which was coming from opposite direction and
thereby, both the rider of the motorcycle and the pillion
rider succumbed to the injuries.
3. On the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be
registered and after completion of the investigation,
charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and
under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of M.V.Act.
4. The trial Court after taking cognizance of the
offence, issued summons to the accused, the accused

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


appeared and on recording the plea of the accused, he has
not pleaded guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt
of the accused, has examined in all 13 witnesses as PW1
to PW13 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P15.
After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of
the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, wherein the accused denied all the
incriminating evidence as found against him in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, he did
not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. The trial Court after appreciation of the
evidence on record, proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment, whereby the accused has been convicted for
the aforesaid offences and sentenced, vide judgment
dated 10.02.2022.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
the trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal before the
First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.27/2022.
8. Learned Appellate Court after re-appreciation of
the evidence on record, has dismissed the appeal,
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court, vide judgment dated 26.10.2023.
9. Learned HCGP entered appearance on behalf of
the respondent State.
10. Original records have been secured.
11. Heard the arguments of Sri Bhandekar D.
Annappa learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek
Malipatil learned HCGP for respondent State.
12. Perused the original records.
13. The point that arises for consideration in this
petition is as under:

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


Whether the impugned judgment passed
by both the Courts suffer from illegality,
perversity and calls for interference by this
Court?

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that, both the Courts have not appreciated the evidence
on record in a proper perspective and erroneously
convicted the accused. Further it is contended that, there
are inconsistencies, contradictions in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and though the prosecution
projected the witnesses as eyewitnesses, they are not at
all the eyewitnesses and on the basis of their evidence
both the Courts have erroneously convicted the accused.
Hence submitted that, both the Courts have committed an
error in convicting the accused.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
argued that, as per the prosecution version the
eyewitnesses are PWs No.1, 4, 5 and 8, though in their
evidence they stated that they have seen the alleged

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


accident, however in their cross examination i.e., PW1 has
admitted that, he saw the motorcycle at a distance of one
kilometer and during that, time, there were number of
vehicles plying on the road. Therefore, it is the argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when PW1
said to have seen the alleged accident at a distance of one
kilometer, how could he say about the manner in which
the vehicle was driven by the accused. Therefore, it is
contended that the evidence of PW1 cannot be accepted as
true.
16. Further, learned counsel argued that even in
the cross-examination of PW4, he has clearly admitted
that he could not say how the accident had occurred.
Further, he has also deposed that on the date of incident,
he did not see who was driving the said vehicle. Therefore,
learned counsel argued that, even the evidence of PW4
cannot be accepted so as to say that, the accused drove
the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


17. Further, even in the cross examination of PW5,
he similarly deposed as deposed by PW4 in his cross-
examination. Further PW8 also deposed in his cross-
examination that, at the time of accident they were not in
the spot. They travelled further from the accident spot.
Therefore it is argued that, these witnesses PWs No.1, 4, 5
and 8 were not at all eyewitnesses to the incident and the
trial Court has wrongly appreciated their evidence and
came to wrong conclusion that the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused.
18. Therefore it is argued that, both the Courts
have committed serious error without appreciating the
evidence on record in a proper perspective.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the following decisions in support of his case.
i) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.900/2017 in the case
of Nanjundappa and another vs. The State
of Karnataka, decided on 17.05.2022.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


ii) (1998) 8 SCC 493, in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Satish, decided on
13.03.1996.
iii) Order of this Court in Criminal Review
Petition No.1317/2010, in the case of
Puttaiah @ Mahesh vs. State by Rural
Police, Hassan, decided on 04.03.2016.
iv) Order of this Court in Criminal Revision
Petition No.1004/2021, in the case of
Harish S/o.late Ranganath decided on
29.04.2025.
v) 2020 Crl.L.J. 586 in the case of Armugam
Nayanar vs. State of Karnataka.
vi) Judgment of High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital, in Criminal Revision No.320/2013,
in the case of Virendra Kumar and another
vs. State of Uttarakhand, decided on
29.08.2023.

20. On the contrary, learned HCGP argued that
though there are some inconsistencies in the cross
examination of the said eyewitnesses, however PWs No.1,
4, 5 and 8 have supported the prosecution version, the
manner in which the accused drove the vehicle and caused
the accident. Therefore, learned HCGP argued that the
discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


are not material discrepancies so as to discard their
evidence and both the Courts have rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and came to the right conclusion that
the accused has committed the offence.
21. On going through the documents produced by
the prosecution, as per the sketch Ex.P4 wherein the
accident spot is clearly mentioned and on careful perusal
of the said Ex.P4 spot sketch, according to the prosecution
the accused was proceeding from Gadag to Hubballi and
the vehicle of the deceased was proceeding from Hubballi
to Gadag. When the accused was proceeding from Gadag
to Hubballi, as per the sketch it discloses that he went to
the extreme right side of the road and hit the vehicle in
question. Therefore, the sketch is clear that the accused
went extreme right side and hit the motorcycle, thereby
caused the accident. The sketch itself speaks about the
alleged rash and negligent driving of the accused.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


22. On a perusal of the reasons assigned by both
the Courts, both the Courts have rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and have come to the right conclusion
that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
beyond any reasonable doubt.
23. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the trial Court has sentenced the accused
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year for
the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Instead
of sending him to jail, fine amount may be enhanced.
24. Further, in that regard and in the similar
circumstances this Court has disposed of the matter in the
case of Tammanna and The State of Karnataka, in
Criminal Revision Petition No.100171/2021, dated
17.07.2025 , wherein the sentence of imprisonment is
modified and accused was directed to pay the fine.
Following the said decision, here in this case also the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


considered for imposition of higher fine instead of
sentence of imprisonment. Hence, the point for
consideration is answered accordingly.
25. Resultantly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is allowed
in part.
The impugned judgment dated
26.10.2023, passed by IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Criminal Appeal
No.27/2022, for the offence punishable under
sections 279, 304A of IPC and under section
134(a)(b) read with section 187 of M.V.Act and
judgment dated 10.02.2022, passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalgund, in
C.C.No.389/2019, is confirmed insofar as
conviction of the accused is concerned. The
sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified
as under:
The accused shall pay a fine of ₹50,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 304A
of IPC. In default, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one year.
In so far as other offence are concerned,
sentence imposed by the trial Court is
maintained which reads as under:

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18056
CRL.RP No. 100443 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020200782023


The accused shall pay ₹500/- for the
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC,
further the accused shall pay a fine of ₹2,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section
134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of M.V.Act.
In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as
ordered by the trial Court in respect of the
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC
and 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of M.V.Act.
In all, the petitioner/accused is ordered to
pay a total fine of ₹52,500/- before the trial
Court within three months from the date of this
judgment, excluding the amount already
deposited, if any.
The petitioner is directed to appear before
the trial Court within 3 months and to deposit
the fine amount. In case the petitioner has not
deposited the fine amount within 03 months,
then the trial Court is directed to proceed in
accordance with law directing the accused to
serve the sentence as ordered by the trial
Court.
Office is directed to send back the original
records along with a copy of this judgment.


Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE

MRK
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36