Karnataka High Court
Vittal Maruti Dombar vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2026
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH 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.)
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.07.24 16:58:11
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 28.03.2016, PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN S.C.NO.137/2014 AND
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, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 Hospital to
see their father; after seeing their father, they were
returning back to their work; The deceased Sunil was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
22/EL-1320 towards Gajapathi and complainant and CW.6
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
were proceeding on another motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-22/AH-0622. CW.6 was riding the
motorcycle and the complainant was proceeding as pillion
rider; they were coming from KLE Hospital towards
Channamma Circle and the deceased Sunil was proceeding
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 taken
turn towards District Hospital near the main gate, on
Channamma Circle Kolhapur Circle road, the driver of a
truck (the accused herein) bearing registration No.KA-
48/5177 came in rash and negligent manner driven his
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 fatal
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 before
-4-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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. Learned
JMFC, Belagavi, came to know that the offence alleged is
punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, committed
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 was
framed against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and under Section
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 evidence,
-5-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 whereby
the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 279, 304 Part-II of IPC and under Section
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 setting
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
“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 was
intoxicated and dashed against the vehicle of the
deceased. He has argued that none of the independent
witnesses have supported the prosecution case except 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 also
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
and in his presence panchanamas were drawn as per
Exs.P.1 and P.2 and he has also identified the photos
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 deposed
about the accident. PW.8 is the doctor who examined the
accused with regard to whether he had consumed alcohol
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 accident. 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 suggested to
the complainant that as the deceased took the vehicle
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 put to
him. He has denied the said suggestion. However, PW.7
has admitted that he did not see how the accident
– 11 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
happened. Therefore, it is the argument of the learned
counsel for the accused that PW.7 is a created witness
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 falsely
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 rash
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 need
not be any interference by this Court.
– 12 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
13. On perusal of the evidence on record, as rightly
argued by the learned HCGP that from the evidence of
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 their
evidence cannot be accepted to assess the negligence,
however, the arguments of the learned counsel for the
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 vehicle
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 and
– 13 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 pending
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/accused
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
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 the
learned counsel for appellant/accused, this Court may
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 as
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
mitigating factors, this Court is of the opinion that this
Court may reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded
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 offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC and under Section
185 of M.V.Act is maintained. Accordingly, the appeal 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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016CNR: KAHC020067022016
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, 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-II of
IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
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 NC: 2026:KHC-D:10536
CRL.A No. 100112 of 2016
CNR: KAHC020067022016
vi) Out of the total fine amount, a sum of
₹75,000/- is ordered to be paid to CW-8 Smt.Sharavva
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 two
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
