- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100067 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI VINOD KUMAR S/O. VEERA BHADRAPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. EEQ 22, KADA COLONY, MUNIRABAD DAM, MUNIRABAD-583211, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CPI, KUDLIGI CIRCLE, KUDLIGI POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.06.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. KUDLIGI IN C.C.NO. 80/2018 MODIFIED IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5034/2022 VIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.01.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304A, AND 279 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.80/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi dated 06.06.2022 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5034/2022 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, (Sitting at Hosapete) dated 23.01.2023 whereby, the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced as under has preferred the present revision petition challenging the validity of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in this revision: “Acting under Section 386(b)(iii) of Cr.P.C., the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused in CC No.80/2018, is hereby allowed in part, resulting into reduction of the sentence of imprisonment of the accused from 1 year to 6 months, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Resultantly, the judgment and sentence recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudiligi in CC No.80/2018, dated 06.06.2022, hereby modified, consequently, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and in default of payment of the said fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. In view of sentencing the accused under Section 304A of IPC, accused is not sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The appellant/accused is hereby directed to appear before the Trial Court and to receive and serve the modified sentence.” 2. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of road traffic accident that occurred on 22.09.2017 at about 7.45 a.m., a complaint came to be lodged against the accused being the driver of the car bearing No.KA.35.A.7794 alleging the rash and negligent driving of the said car resulting in dashing against the motorcycle bearing No.KA.35.W.9098 which was ridden by C.Nagaraja and pillion rider – Siddesha being the brother of the rider of the motorcycle. In the incident, Siddesha being the pillion rider suffered grievous injuries and died later on and C.Nagaraja succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. Based on the complaint, police registered the case against accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of the Indian Motor - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 Vehicles Act and investigated the matter thoroughly and filed the charge sheet against the accused. 4. Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused, charges were framed for the aforesaid offences. Accused has pleaded not guilty. 5. As such, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to 12. Eighteen documentary evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 18. 6. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.3 and 4 being the eye witness to the incident have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 also turned partly hostile and P.W.5 another eye witness to the incident has supported the case of the prosecution in entirity. 7. The other material witnesses are formal in nature speaking about the part of the investigation and Doctor who issued post-mortem reports. Inspector of the motor vehicles who issued the IMV report. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 8. Detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive materials so as to disbelieve the version of the prosecution or false implication of the accused in the incident. 9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein accused has simply denied all the incriminatory materials but did not chose to place his version of the incident on record by filing the written submissions as is contemplated under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. nor placed any defence evidence. 10. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 06.06.2022, convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5034/2022. 12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds urged on behalf of the accused and by considered judgment dated 23.01.2023, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction but reduced the sentence from one year to six months. 13. State or the defacto complainant did not file any revision challenging reduction of the sentence and therefore, it has become final insofar as the State or the defacto complainant is concerned. 14. Being further argued by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 15. Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that in the case on hand, order of recording the guilt of the accused for the aforesaid offences passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from serious legal infirmities and thus, calls for interference in this revision. 16. He would further contend that P.W.5 clearly admitted that the place of accident had the curved road and therefore, there was a scope for error of judgment having regard to the width of the road. Therefore, attributing the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 negligence on the part of the revision petitioner is incorrect and same has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the order of conviction against the revision petitioner. 17. He would also contend that P.W.3 and 4 being cited as eye witnesses, having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 has also turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution is totally ignored by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the impugned order which has been mechanically approved by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court insofar as guilt of the accused is concerned and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Alternatively, Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel would contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction, may further modify the sentence by enhancing the fine amount by granting the probation to the revision petitioner and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 19. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. 20. She would further contend that material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to infer the negligent driving on the part of the revision petitioner who drove the car bearing No.KA.35.A.7794 and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA.35.W.9908 resulting in rider of the motorcycle losing his life on the spot because of the impact of the accident and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and also lost his life later. 21. She would further contend that only on the ground that P.W.3 and 4 having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, case of the prosecution cannot be doubted in entirety and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 22. She has further contended that two valuable life has been lost in the road traffic accident. Therefore, further reduction of the sentence is impermissible and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 23. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 24. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the revision petitioner makes out that the impugned orders are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity or patent factual error so as to call for interference in this revision petition? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 3. What order? REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 25. In the case on hand, death of C.Nagaraja being the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA.35.W.9908 and injuries sustained by Siddesha, who also lost his life later is established vide post-mortem reports. 26. Accused being the rider of the car bearing No.KA.35.A.7794 as on the date of accident is not in dispute. Spot mahazar coupled with the spot sketch conclusively establish the place of accident. IMV report does not indicate that the offending car had any mechanical defect whereby, the accident has occurred beyond the human control. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 27. Time and place of the accident, width of the road, would be sufficient enough to show that there was sufficient margin for the car driver to drive the car without dashing against the motorcycle. So also there was sufficient visibility as the accident has occurred at 7.45 a.m. in the month of September. 28. Therefore, the only factor that could be inferred from the attendant circumstances from the oral and documentary evidence placed on record would be negligent driving of the car by the revision petitioner. 29. Admittedly, complainant and P.W.5 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity so as to falsely implicate the revision petitioner in the incident. 30. Material evidence also establish that the damage that has been caused to the right hand side of the car, right head light and right side of the car doors have been scratched. Blood stains were found on the head light region of the car would sufficiently establish that it is a head on collision whereby the driver of the car is responsible for dashing of the car to the motorcycle. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 31. Margin that has been shown in the spot mahazar would go to show that it is the car which has moved on the wrong side of the road in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. 32. Oral testimony of the eye witnesses would be sufficient enough to infer the negligence on the part of the revision petitioner which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 33. P.W.3 and 4 having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, did not cause any serious dent in the case of the prosecution inasmuch as it is not the quantity of the evidence that has to be taken into consideration while adjudging the guilt of the party but it is the quality of the evidence that has to be appreciated. Further, accused failed to place on record his version about the incident. 34. In a matter of this nature, especially, in the road traffic accident, revision petitioner being the participant in the same incident, he is expected to spell out about his version in respect of the incident either orally or in writing, at least at the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 time of recording the accused statement. The purpose of recording the accused statement in a matter of this nature is not mere empty formality or purposeless. But it serves dual purpose. 35. Firstly, the learned Trial Magistrate is bound to put forward the incriminatory materials found in the case of the prosecution to the accused seeking his explanation and it is a mandatory duty on the part of the Trial Court. 36. Secondly, it would afford a suitable and sufficient opportunity for the accused to place on record his version about the incident so as to adjudge whether the accused is responsible for the alleged incident or was there any extraneous circumstances which resulted in the incident, which was beyond reasonable expectation of a driver of an automobile. 37. If the accused deliberately fails to make use of the said opportunity either at the time of recording the accused statement or not furnishing the defence, the consequences in law will have to follow. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 38. 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 v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2012 SC 2986 wherein in paragraph No.39 it has been held as under: 39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 CrPC are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case. 39. Further, since the revision petitioner failed to offer his explanation, learned Trial Magistrate based on the material evidence placed on record has rightly concluded that because of the guilt of negligent driving attributable to the revision petitioner, the incident has happened and C.Nagaraja died on the spot and pillion rider also died on account of the accidental injuries after the period of three months. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 40. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs not interference. 41. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court however using his discretion has scaled out the sentence period from one year to six months. Since the State and victim has not filed any appeals in respect of the enhancement of the sentence in the revision filed by the revision petitioner, this court cannot enhance the sentence nor reduce further. 42. 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 State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. 43. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative. REG.POINT No.3: 44. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4192 CRL.RP No. 100067 of 2023 ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is granted for the accused/revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 30.03.2025 for serving remaining part of the sentence. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26