Facts
On 3 September 2013, a bus driven by the petitioner collided with a motorcycle near Navalur Bridge. The motorcycle’s rider later died from his injuries.
Source reference: para. 2–3The petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Source reference: para. 2–3The trial court convicted him and imposed, among other penalties, one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 304A; the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Source reference: para. 7–9In revision, the petitioner challenged the concurrent findings, including on the grounds that witnesses had not established negligent driving.
Source reference: para. 10–11Issues
Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence suffered from illegality, perversity or other infirmity warranting interference in revision.
Source reference: para. 14Whether the one-year sentence of imprisonment under Section 304A IPC should be modified to a fine.
Source reference: para. 28–30Law Applied
The Court considered Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC, under which the petitioner had been convicted.
Source reference: para. 1, 29Section 304A permits imprisonment of either description for up to two years, a fine, or both.
Source reference: para. 29Exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, the Court considered whether the concurrent findings disclosed illegality, perversity or another infirmity requiring interference.
Source reference: para. 1, 14Reasoning
The Court found that the pillion rider (PW4), an eyewitness, testified that the bus approached at high speed and struck the motorcycle; the courts below had accepted this evidence and found that the petitioner’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident.
Source reference: para. 22–26The motor-vehicle inspection disclosed no mechanical defects in either vehicle.
Source reference: para. 25The Court held that the evidence had been properly assessed and found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of guilt.
Source reference: para. 27However, given the sentencing discretion under Section 304A and the petitioner’s submission, it considered a fine an appropriate modification in place of the one-year custodial sentence.
Source reference: para. 28–30Holding
The revision petition was partly allowed. The conviction was left undisturbed, but the Section 304A sentence was modified to a fine of ₹50,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.
The sentences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC were maintained, and the petitioner was directed to deposit the total fine of ₹51,500 by 30 October 2026.
Source reference: para. 31–32Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18602
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Original Court PDF
SRI. CHANNAVEERAYYA S/O FAKKIRAYYA HIREMATHvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
