- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100348 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DURGAPRASAD @ DURGAPRASAD BHAT, S/O. RAMA BHAT, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O. KASARGOD, KERALA-671121. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. MURDESHWAR POLICE STATION, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.137/2012 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1625/2009 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL AND ALLOW THE PETITION AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.137/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.19 10:33:24 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1625/2009, DATED 12.09.2012, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE AND TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION 279 OF IPC AND FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION 337 OF IPC SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS AND FINE OF RS. 500/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THE SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH AND FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION 304(A) OF IPC THE SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND FINE OF RS.2000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH. THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri S.V. Yaji, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) has sentenced as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 “In exercise of the powers vested under U/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 279, 337 and 304(a) of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable U/s 337 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs 500=00 and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple imprisonment for 1 month. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and shall pay fine amount of 2,000=00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304(A) of IPC and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently. The Bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.137/2012 which came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 5th August, 2023. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.11.2009 at about 7:15 am involving Indica car bearing No.MH-04/AS-3771 which was moving from Murdeshwara towards Basti dashed against the tempo bearing No.KA- 47/1444 which was coming from opposite side, a complaint came to be filed. 4.1 Due to impact of the accident, Gaurav who was sitting in the front seat of the car, succumbed to the injuries and also accused who suffered an injury. After registering the case, police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the car. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 5. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. Plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 12 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-12 and as many as 13 documents were placed on record which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13 and glass pieces collected during the spot panchnama were marked as M.O.1. 7. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 8. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances, but did not choose to place his version about the incident in writing as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 9. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both sides and based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.137/2012. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after hearing the arguments of both sides and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by judgment dated 5th August, 2023. 12. Subsequent thereto, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 13. Sri S.V. Yaji, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to note that accused also got injured in the very same accident. Therefore, no negligence could have been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 attributed to the petitioner herein and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Alternatively, Sri Yaji would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, fine amount may be enhanced by setting aside the imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and three months imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 15. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned orders. 16. He would contend with vehemence that in the case on hand, accused being the driver of the Indica car is not in dispute and because of the impact of the accident, inmate of the car viz., Gaurav lost his life. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on record on behalf of the accused at the time of recording the accused statement - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 nor there is any material on record which would indicate that accused tried to avoid the accident. Therefore, no lenience can be shown and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 17. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, accused being the driver of the Indica car bearing No.MH- 04-AS/3771 is not in dispute and death of Gaurav being the inmate of the car in the said road traffic accident is established by placing necessary evidence on record. 19. No doubt, accused is also injured in the same incident. Police after thorough investigation, noted that it is the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, accident has occurred whereby the car hit the tempo bearing No.KA-47/1447 which was coming from the opposite side. Sketch filed along with the charge sheet papers would - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 substantially establish that it is the accused who was on the wrong side of the road. 20. PW-12 is the one of the Investigation Officers. He has no doubt admitted that in Exs.P-4 to P-6, which are the photographs, wherein the fallen tempo is not seen. He also admits that because of the impact of the accident, tempo hit the electric pole and the electric pole had broken and fallen down. 21. PW-2 is the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution in toto by narrating the incident with graphic details. 22. In his cross-examination, suggestions put to him that he is disposing falsely and with an intention to falsely implicate the accused in the case is denied by him. PW-2 also stated before the Court that tyre marks of the car were found from its left side to the right side of the road, which shows that he has cleared the vehicle on the right side whereby he hit the tempo. These aspects as the matter has been taken note of by the learned Trial - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 Magistrate while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. 23. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, the accused who was expected to place his version about the incident especially when he is also injured in the very same accident. But for the reasons best known to him, he did not choose to place his version on record in writing as is contemplated under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C., but simply denied the incriminatory materials which has been observed by the learned Trial Judge. 24. In a matter of this nature, accused is bound to place his version on record after the prosecution establishes its case. If he fails to do so, consequences in law has to be followed which has been followed by the learned Trial Judge and re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 25. View of this Court in this regard is supported by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. 26. Accordingly, even having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is unable to find any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by both the Courts. 27. Having said thus, this Court noticed that accused also injured in the same incident. Taking note of the same, the sentence of one year imprisonment ordered to the accused for the offence under Section 304A of IPC is reduced to imprisonment for a period of nine months and other sentences if ordered to run concurrently with the sentence under Section 304A of IPC would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances that case on hand 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 following the principles of law enunciated in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2. 28. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER 1) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. 2) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 339 and 304A of IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: (i) The simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is reduced to nine months and all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. (ii) Rest of the sentences stand unaltered. 3) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence till 10th May, 2025. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6121 CRL.RP No. 100348 of 2023 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing the modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26