Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ravi B.V vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4578 of 2025)
RAVI B.V. APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 03.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2021 by which, challenge to
the judgment dated 04.10.2018 passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatana in C.C. No.10 of 2017
convicting the appellant under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and
under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.800/- for the offence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2026.03.09
16:36:32 IST
Reason:
fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further 15 days; simple
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence
2
punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further 3 months; fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V. Act
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for 10 days with the stipulation that all sentences would run
concurrently and affirmed by the III Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Mandya in Crl.A. No.5024 of 2018 vide judgment dated
29.08.2020, has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident
did occur but it was not deliberate and beyond his control and the
appellant is relatively young, has a family to support and is the
only breadwinner. It was submitted that the appellant had suffered
loss of reputation as there is a conviction recorded against him.
However, for the larger interest of justice and taking a
humanitarian view, and the life which has been lost, though cannot
be returned, but at least, there can be some reprieve to the
dependants of the deceased, who are still living and at the same
time, the appellant would also be able to discharge his
responsibility towards the family of the deceased by paying some
money to them to compensate the death.
5. Earlier, on such stand, we had asked the learned counsel for
the respondent-State to locate the family of the deceased and
today, they are appearing before the Court through video
conferencing.
3
6. On a query of the Court from the learned counsel for the
appellant as to what would be the amount which the appellant would
be ready to pay, initially, the appellant offered a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). The same being put across to the
dependants of the deceased, they requested that the Court may get
the figure enhanced.
7. We are glad to record that, upon instructions, learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not in a
financially viable condition but still, as a mark of respect to the
sentiments of the Court, he would be able to manage a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) and pay to the
dependants of the deceased. The same is accepted by the dependants
of the deceased.
8. Having considered the matter, we find that it is a grey area
and also debatable as to what should be the exact degree of
punishment in a case where an accident had happened without there
being any background or explanation to it. Thus, we find that when
the appellant has offered to pay a sum which is reasonable, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may grant him relief
in the said proportion. Accordingly, without interfering in the
conviction of the appellant, the sentence of the appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone.
4
9. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand)
be paid by the appellant to the mother of the deceased, within two
months from today and an affidavit to this effect shall be filed by
the appellant before this Court. Learned counsel for the
respondent-State shall provide the bank details of the account to
the learned counsel for the appellant in which the money shall be
transferred by the appellant, during the course of the day.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
………………………………………………………J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI
18th FEBRUARY, 2026
5
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4578/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-06-2024
in CRRP No.9/2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru]
RAVI B.V. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
[TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE TOP OF THE LIST]
(IA No. 36756/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-02-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv.
Mr. Praney Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR
Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Divya Prabha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Payal Gola, Adv.
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)