Karnataka HC Modifies One-Year Jail Term to Day's Custody, Raises Fine to ₹1 Lakh in Fatal Accident Case
Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld, but sentence cut to a single day after the accused stayed at the scene and shifted the injured to hospital in his own car.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has modified the sentence imposed on Riyaz Ahmed, a car driver convicted for causing the death of Anand Shetty in a road accident on 15 July 2015. Justice V. Srishananda, sitting singly, allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was maintained in full. However, the one-year simple imprisonment confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, was replaced with imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court. The fine was simultaneously enhanced from ₹5,000 to ₹1,00,000, to be paid in two instalments and distributed as compensation to the deceased's wife and son.
The Accident and the Criminal Proceedings
The incident occurred on 15 July 2015 at around 6:30 p.m. Anand Shetty sustained injuries and did not survive. The North Traffic Police Station, Mangalore, registered a case against Riyaz Ahmed for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
The II Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore, tried the matter in C.C. No. 3531 of 2015 and convicted Ahmed on 21 October 2017. The sentence imposed was one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment. Ahmed appealed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in CRL.A. No. 151 of 2017. The Sessions Judge confirmed both conviction and sentence on 26 February 2018. Ahmed then filed the present criminal revision petition before the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
What the Revision Petition Sought
Ahmed's counsel, Sri Harinath M.S., did not press for acquittal. The petition sought modification of the sentence, not a reversal of the conviction. The primary argument was that Ahmed had not fled the scene after the accident. Instead, he stopped his car, went to where Anand Shetty had fallen, and transported the injured man to hospital in his own vehicle. Counsel characterised this as a mitigating circumstance warranting leniency on sentence.
Counsel also placed on record Ahmed's health condition. Ahmed had himself met with an accident and has a rod implant in his right leg. As a consequence of that injury, he lost his employment as a driver and now earns a livelihood through smaller jobs. The petition proposed that the imprisonment be set aside and the fine enhanced to an amount that could serve as compensation to the deceased's dependants.
The Court's Approach to Sentence Modification
Justice Srishananda began by examining the evidentiary record. Witnesses PW1 to PW4 had turned hostile to the prosecution's case. Despite this, the Court found the material on record “sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the petitioner.” The conviction was therefore not disturbed.
On sentence, the Court acknowledged its limited revisional powers. The question was whether the sentence, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, warranted modification given the submissions made. The Court identified two factors in Ahmed's favour. First, his conduct immediately after the accident: he did not run away but stopped, approached the injured, and shifted him to hospital in his own car. This was corroborated by Ahmed's own statement recorded during the trial. Second, his willingness to pay an enhanced fine amount.
The Court also took note that the dependants of the deceased had already received compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. One of the dependants, Santhosh, the son of the deceased, was directed to appear before the Court through the High Court Government Pleader. He was present. The High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Waheeda M.M., submitted on behalf of the State that if a reasonable enhancement in fine was ordered, the Court could pass suitable directions.
Weighing Ahmed's post-accident conduct, his physical condition, his loss of livelihood, and the family's prior receipt of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation, the Court concluded that the sentence needed modification. The imprisonment for one year was replaced with imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court. The fine was enhanced to ₹1,00,000.
Instalment Arrangement and Compensation Distribution
Ahmed's counsel requested that the enhanced fine be permitted to be paid in two instalments, citing the petitioner's financial condition. The Court accepted this. The ₹1,00,000 is to be paid in two equal instalments: the first by 31 May 2026 and the second by 30 June 2026.
On receipt of the entire fine amount, ₹50,000 each is to be paid as compensation to Mrs. Sumathi, the wife of the deceased Anand Shetty, and Sri Santhosh Kumar, the son, under due identification.
The Court built in a consequence for default. If Ahmed fails to pay the enhanced fine as agreed, the sentence originally ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, one year's simple imprisonment, will automatically stand restored. No further order would be required.
Outcome
Criminal Revision Petition No. 486 of 2018 was allowed in part by order dated 28 April 2026. The conviction of Riyaz Ahmed under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was maintained. The sentence of one year's simple imprisonment was modified to imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court. The fine was enhanced to ₹1,00,000, payable in two equal instalments on 31 May 2026 and 30 June 2026. On full payment, ₹50,000 each is to be disbursed to Mrs. Sumathi and Sri Santhosh Kumar. Failure to pay will restore the original sentence. The office was directed to return the trial court records with a copy of the order for issue of a modified conviction warrant.