- 1 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24

TH

DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100112 OF 2016 (C)

BETWEEN:

VITTAL MARUTI DOMBAR

AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,

R/O: K. CHANDARGI,

TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

R/BY ITS ADDL.

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP.)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374(2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYIN G

TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION

DATED 28.03.2016, PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTR ICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN S.C.NO.137/2014 AN D

CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304 PART-II OF

IPC AND SECTION 185 THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, I N

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 17.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

- 2 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED

THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N. HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused under

Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated

28.03.2016, passed by the

IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi , in

S.C.No.137/2014, for the offences punishable under

Section 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and Section 185 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V.Act, for short).

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on

01.04.2013, the complainant, CW.6, and the deceased

Sunil Durgappa Hanchinamani had been to KLE Hospita l to

see their father; after seeing their father, they w ere

returning back to their work; The deceased Sunil wa s

proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

22/EL-1320 towards Gajapathi and complainant and CW .6

- 3 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

were proceeding on another motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-22/AH-0622. CW.6 was riding the

motorcycle and the complainant was proceeding as pi llion

rider; they were coming from KLE Hospital towards

Channamma Circle and the deceased Sunil was proceed ing

in front of them; when they reached Kolhapur Circle, the

deceased stopped his vehicle and said that he will go to

District Hospital and accordingly he was proceeding on the

same road; at about 03.40 p.m., when Sunil had take n

turn towards District Hospital near the main gate, on

Channamma Circle Kolhapur Circle road, the driver o f a

truck (the accused herein) bearing registration No. KA-

48/5177 came in rash and negligent manner driven hi s

truck so as to endanger to human life and dashed to the

motorcycle of Sunil; due to the said impact, Sunil fell down

on the ground with his motorcycle and sustained fat al

injuries; Sunil was shifted to District Hospital, where he

was declared as dead; on the basis of the complaint

lodged by the complainant, a case was registered be fore

- 4 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

the North Traffic Police, Belagavi, in Crime No.71/2013;

after investigation, charge sheet was filed before the

JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, in C.C.No.128/2014. Learne d

JMFC, Belagavi, came to know that the offence allege d is

punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, commit ted

the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable

under section 304 Part-II of IPC is exclusively triable by

the Court of Sessions.

3. Before the Sessions Court, after appearance of

the accused and after compliance of Section 207 of

Cr.P.C., and after hearing both the sides, charge w as

framed against the accused for the offence punishab le

under Section 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and under Sec tion

185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accused pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution , in

order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined in

all 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exs.P.1

to P.25. After completion of the prosecution eviden ce,

- 5 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded. He denied all incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses. However, he did not choose to plead any

defence evidence. The trial Court after hearing both the

sides proceeded to pass the impugned judgment where by

the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and under Sec tion

185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him as

under:

ORDER

“The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable u/s.

279 of IPC.

The accused is hereby sentenced to under

go rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay

a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to under go

rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the

offence punishable u/s. 304 II of IPC.

The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable

u/s.185 of M.V.Act.

The accused was in judicial custody since

4.9.2015 till 26.9.2015 and further he is in

- 6 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

judicial custody from 28.3.2016 and he is

entitled for set off as contemplated u/s. 428 of

Cr.P.C.

Acting u/s. 357 (1) Cr.P.C., out of the total

fine of Rs.52,000/- collected from the accused

Rs.40,000/- is hereby awarded as compensation

to CW-8, Smt. Sharavva Durgappa

Hanchinamani.

The interim order passed regarding the

release of vehicles is hereby made absolute.”

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment,

the accused/appellant has preferred the present appeal on

the following grounds:

a) The impugned judgment is contrary to

law, facts and evidence on record.

b) The trial Court erred in convicting the

accused, though the prosecution has not

proved the guilt of the accused beyond

any reasonable doubt. The finding of the

trial Court is contrary to the evidence of

prosecution witnesses.

c) The trial Court erred in convicting the

accused relying on the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses PW.1, PW.6 and

PW.7, who are interested witnesses.

Their testimony is not in conformity with

the statement recorded by the police

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., despite the

- 7 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

trial Court not appreciated the said fact

and erroneously convicted the accused.

d) There are lot of contradictions, omissions

and improvements occurred in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, which

are not properly appreciated by the trial

Court.

e) None of the witnesses have deposed with

regard to speed and rashness driving of

the vehicle and no evidence is

forthcoming that the accused had

consumed alcohol. Even though there are

absence of materials, the trial Court has

recorded the conviction, which is illegal,

erroneous and liable to be set aside.

5. On these grounds, learned counsel for the

appellant has prayed for allowing the appeal by set ting

aside the impugned judgment and sentence and prayed

for acquitting the accused.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels

appearing for both the sides and perused the trial Court

records. Now, the following point would arise for

consideration in this appeal.

- 8 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

“Whether the impugned judgment is

illegal, perverse and calls for interference by

this Court?”

7. During the course of arguments, learned

counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the trial

Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record

erroneously came to the conclusion that the accused drove

the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he w as

intoxicated and dashed against the vehicle of the

deceased. He has argued that none of the independen t

witnesses have supported the prosecution case excep t the

interested witnesses and the complainant.

8. On a perusal of the evidence on record, PW.1,

who is said to be the pancha witness to Exs.P.1 and P.2

has not supported the prosecution version stating that in

his presence no mahazar had taken place. PW.2 is al so

said to be the witness to mahazars Exs.P.1 and P.2. He

has supported the prosecution version stating that on

02.04.2013 the police called him to the place of accident

- 9 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

and in his presence panchanamas were drawn as per

Exs.P.1 and P.2 and he has also identified the phot os

marked as Exs.P.4 to P.7.

9. PW.3, who is the driver of the truck has

deposed that, as on the date of accident, the truck was

driven by the accused herein. PW.4, who is brother of the

deceased has deposed about the accident and lodging of

the complaint as per Ex.P.9. PW.5 is the inquest mahazar

witness to Ex.P.12. PW.6 is also the brother of the

deceased, who has deposed about the accident. PW.7 is

also the eyewitness to the accident, who has depose d

about the accident. PW.8 is the doctor who examined the

accused with regard to whether he had consumed alco hol

on that day and issued certificate that he had consumed

alcohol but he was not intoxicated and the certificates are

marked as Exs.P.13 and P.14.

10. PW.9 is the police officer who received the

complaint and conducted part of the investigation. PW.10

- 10 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

and PW.11 are the official witnesses. PW.12 is the FSL

Officer.

11. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the

accused that, on a perusal of the aforesaid evidence, only

the brother of the deceased PW.4, PW.6 and another eye

witness PW.7 have deposed about the alleged acciden t. As

per the evidence of the doctor, the accused was not

intoxicated though he consumed the liquor. In the cross-

examination of PW.4 the complainant, it is suggeste d to

the complainant that as the deceased took the vehic le

suddenly to the right side, there was accident and it was

not caused by the accused and the accident occurred only

due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased, which

was denied by the PW.4 and the same suggestion was put

to PW.6 also. He has also denied the said suggestion. Even

in the evidence of PW.7, the same suggestion was pu t to

him. He has denied the said suggestion. However, PW .7

has admitted that he did not see how the accident

- 11 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

happened. Therefore, it is the argument of the lear ned

counsel for the accused that PW.7 is a created witn ess

projected as eyewitness and PW.4 and PW.6, who are the

brother of the deceased, absolutely there was no fault on

the part of the accused and it was the fault of the

deceased, the accident occurred and he has been fal sely

implicated.

12. Per contra, learned HCGP argued that it has

come in the evidence of the doctor that the accused had

consumed alcohol and though PW.4 and PW.6 are the

relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be

discarded. They have spoken about the accident how it

was happened and they have also spoken about the ra sh

and negligent driving of by the accused, therefore, taking

into consideration of the evidence as a whole, the trial

Court has rightly convicted the accused and there n eed

not be any interference by this Court.

- 12 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

13. On perusal of the evidence on record, as rightly

argued by the learned HCGP that from the evidence o f

complainant PW.4, being the brother of the deceased

deposed about the manner in which the accused came and

caused the accident. Similarly, PW.6 who is also another

brother of the deceased has spoken regarding the

accident. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused

argued that PW.4 and PW.6 being the brothers of the

deceased, they are the interested witnesses and the ir

evidence cannot be accepted to assess the negligenc e,

however, the arguments of the learned counsel for t he

appellant/accused holds no merits, because PW.4 and

PW.6 though relative of the deceased and interested

witnesses, they are the eye witnesses, who actually had

seen the manner in which the accused drove the vehi cle

and apart from their evidence, PW.7 who was also the eye

witness, spoken about the alleged accident, though there

are some variations in his evidence, that is not a material

contraction so as to discard the evidence of PW.7 a nd

- 13 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

taking into consideration the evidence of PW.4, PW.6 and

PW.7, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused that

he has committed the alleged offence.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused

argued that, in this case the accused at the time of alleged

accident was aged 23 years old, he was a truck driver and

he was in Judicial Custody during the trial for a period of

two months, taking into his background, he has no

criminal antecedents, there are no other cases pend ing

against him, and provisions of Section 304 Part-II provides

punishment ‘imprisonment for ten years, or fine, or both’,

therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/accuse d

submitted that in the event this Court has come to the

conclusion that the accused has committed the offence, as

Section 304 Part-II provides discretion to award

imprisonment or to impose fine, further, the accused has

come from very poor family, having poor financial position

and therefore submitted that the days spent by him in the

- 14 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

Judicial Custody during the trial may be set of by

increasing the fine amount.

15. This Court has gone through the provisions of

Section 304 Part-II of IPC. As rightly argued by th e

learned counsel for appellant/accused, this Court m ay

sentence the accused for imprisonment or to impose fine.

16. The trial Court has sentenced the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC to

undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of

Rs.50,000/-.

17. Considering the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant/accused and taking into

consideration of the year of commission of offence i.e.,

2013, at that time accused was aged 23 years, and a s

there is a discretion to award imprisonment or to impose

fine, and further on reading of the judgment cited by the

learned counsel for the appellant/accused, if there are

exceptional circumstances, and when there are significant

- 15 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

mitigating factors, this Court is of the opinion that this

Court may reduce the sentence of imprisonment award ed

by the trial Court i.e., 03 years is reduced to 02 months as

the accused already undergone during the trial and the

fine amount imposed by the trial Court of Rs.50,000 /- is

enhanced to Rs.80,000/- and the remaining sentence

awarded by the trial Court in respect of the offenc e

punishable under Section 279 of IPC and under Secti on

185 of M.V.Act is maintained. Accordingly, the appe al is

deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the aforesaid point

is answered partly in the affirmative.

18. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The criminal appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated

28.03.2016, passed by the IX Additional District and

- 16 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C.No.137/2014, for th e

offences punishable under Section 279, 304 Part-II of IPC

and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby

confirmed by modifying the sentence as under:

iii) Accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for a period of two months and pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-

for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I of

IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, the accu sed

shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of s ix

months.

iv) The sentence imposed by the trial Court in

respect of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC

and Section 185 of M.V.Act is confirmed.

v) The period spent by the accused in Judicial

Custody during trial is ordered to be set off against the

sentence as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

- 17 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020067022016

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536

CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016

vi) Out of the total fine amount, a sum of

₹75,000/- is ordered to be paid to CW-8 Smt.Sharavv a

Durgappa Hanchinamani, as compensation and the

remaining amount is ordered to be paid to the State

Government.

vii) The appellant/accused shall serve the sentence

in default of payment of fine amount.

viii) The appellant/accused shall pay the fine

amount before the trial Court, within a period of t wo

months from the date of this order, failing which, the trial

Court is directed to issue conviction warrant to serve the

sentence.

ix) The action taken by the trial Court shall be

communicated to this Court.

Sd/-

(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

JUDGE

MRK Ct-cmu