Karnataka HC Upholds Truck Driver’s Conviction In Crash That Killed Two, Replaces 1-Year Jail Term With ₹50,000 Fine

On 10 March 2015, the petitioner was driving a goods vehicle from Gadag towards Hubballi when it collided with an oncoming motorcycle, killing the rider and pillion passenger.

He was charged with offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 134(a) and (b), read with Section 187, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act).

The trial court convicted him, and the first appellate court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the appreciation of the eyewitness evidence and sought acquittal; alternatively, he requested that imprisonment be replaced with a fine.

The court considered Sections 279 and 304A IPC, concerning rash or negligent driving and causing death by negligence, and Sections 134(a) and (b), read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act, concerning a driver’s post-accident duties and the consequences of non-compliance.

In revision, the question was whether the lower courts’ decisions disclosed illegality or perversity warranting interference.

On sentencing, the court followed Tammanna v. State of Karnataka, Crl.R.P. No. 100171/2021, in which imprisonment had been replaced by a fine in similar circumstances.

The petitioner argued that the identified eyewitnesses’ cross-examination undermined their ability to establish how the collision occurred or who was driving.

The court nevertheless found that the spot sketch, Ex.P4, showed the petitioner’s vehicle travelling from Gadag towards Hubballi had gone to the extreme right side of the road and struck the motorcycle approaching from the opposite direction.

It held that the sketch, considered with the evidence as assessed by both lower courts, supported the finding of rash and negligent driving and disclosed no basis to disturb the conviction.

Separately, relying on the sentencing approach in Tammanna, the court accepted the request to substitute a higher fine for the one-year term of imprisonment imposed under Section 304A IPC.

The convictions under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and Sections 134(a) and (b), read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act, were confirmed.

The Section 304A IPC sentence was modified to a fine of ₹50,000, with one year’s simple imprisonment in default; the fines of ₹500 under Section 279 IPC and ₹2,000 under the M.V. Act were maintained.

The petitioner was directed to pay the total fine of ₹52,500, excluding any amount already deposited, within three months and to appear before the trial court for that purpose.