Karnataka High Court
Bittiyanda K Appaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5292
CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 320 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
BITTIYANDA K. APPAIAH
S/O B.K. KALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER
R/O THERALU VILLAGE BIRUNANI
VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK - 571 249.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. J. KRISHNA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GONIKOPPA P.S
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by
NANDINI M S (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Location:
HIGH COURT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
OF
KARNATAKA SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.03.2015 PASSED
BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PONNAMPET, IN
C.C.NO.602/2010 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.02.2017
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU,
MADIKERI (SITTING AT VIRAJPET), IN CRL.A.NO.23/2015.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5292
CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet in C.C. No.602 of 2010 dated 25.03.2015 and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2015 dated 15.02.2017 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The petitioner herein was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and was tried for the said offences before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet in C.C. No.602 of 2010. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.01.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., petitioner, who was the driver of the Maruthi Omni van bearing registration No.KA-09-N-7486, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in front of Aras car showroom, Gonikappa- Virajpet main Road so as to endanger human life -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR and dashed the said car against the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-12-H-5330, which was driven by one Chonira Sudhan. In the said accident, the rider of the motorbike, namely Chonira Sudhan, who had sustained grievous injuries, had succumbed to the same subsequently. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against him for the said offences by Gonikappa Police, Kodagu District.
4. The petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received in C.C.No.602 of 2010 had claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its allegation against the petitioner had examined eleven charge sheet witnesses and got marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. For the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of ₹.500/- and in default to undergo -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. For the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. For offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. No separate sentence was passed by the Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, in view of the order of sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.602/2010 was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2015 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet) by judgment and order dated 15.02.2017. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR therefore, both the Courts have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. Petitioner is a married man having family to be taken care of. The accident in question had taken place in the year 2009 and already 16 years have lapsed thereafter. If the petitioner is asked to undergo sentence of imprisonment at this stage, he and his family members will be put to hardship. He submits that the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC may be modified and amount of fine imposed on the petitioner may be enhanced. He submits that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh before the Registry of this Court on 29.01.2026 and it may be paid to the wife of the deceased as compensation.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its allegations against the petitioner, has examined 11 charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to P14. PW1/C.S.Abhin Kumar, is the first informant in the present -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR case, who had stated that on the alleged date of incident, deceased/Sudhan was riding his motorcycle with his wife and child as pillion riders. He has also spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi Van by the petitioner, which has caused the road traffic accident, in which his brother/Sudhan had died.
8. PW3 is the wife of deceased, who was riding pillion in the motorcycle of deceased along their child. PW3 as well as her child have suffered injuries in the accident in question and their wound certificates are produced at Ex.P12 and P13. She has also spoken about the manner in which the accident in question had taken place and she has stated that petitioner, who was the driver of the offending Maruthi van had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident. She has specifically stated that petitioner tried to overtake a KSRTC bus and dashed his van against the motorcycle in which she was traveling with her husband.
9. PW1, PW3 and PW7 have identified petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. PW6 is the independent witness, who also has spoken about the accident and has stated that -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR accident in question had taken place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner. IMV report at Ex.P10 and spot mahazar at Ex.P9 also indicate that accident had taken place as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.
10. For the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Jalan vs. State of Karnataka - (2008) 8 SCC 225, has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the accused, payable as compensation to the mother of the deceased. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of George v. State of Kerala arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.11041 of 2024. In the case of Selvam vs. The State arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1072 of 2023, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the sentence already undergone and the accused was imposed -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was payable to the legal representative of the deceased as compensation.
11. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter for sometime on 28.01.2026 had submitted that petitioner is a married man having family and the accident is of the year 2009 and he had expressed his willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased/victim. Though learned HCGP was directed to secure the presence of the legal representatives of the deceased, it was submitted by learned HCGP that legal representatives of the deceased were not ready to come to the Court. It is under these circumstances, petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court on 29.01.2026.
12. It is not in dispute that for conviction under Sections 304- A and 338 of IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed but the term of sentence may extend to two years. The sentence can also be limited to fine without any term of imprisonment. For the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC also, there is no minimum sentence prescribed. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendran vs. Sub-Inspector of Police - (2021) 17 SCC 799 taking into consideration that the accident in question had taken place 17 years ago and the accused was on bail throughout during trial, had sentenced the accused only to pay fine. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner by both the Courts is upheld and sentence passed against him is modified, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet in C.C. No.602 of 2010 dated 25.03.2015 confirmed by judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2015 dated 15.02.2017 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC are confirmed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5292 CRL.RP No. 320 of 2017 HC-KAR
(iii) The order of sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC is confirmed.
(iv) For the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, no separate order of sentence has been passed against the petitioner.
(v) The order of sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is modified and for the said offence, petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by him before the Registry of this Court. In default to pay the fine, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
(vi) The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court shall be transferred to the Trial Court and learned trial Judge shall disburse the said amount to PW3/Vimala, wife of deceased Sudhan, after due identification.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55