- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100099 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND BASAPPA HALABAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. MANGOLI, TAL. BASAVAN BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR AT KHANAPUR, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 553 OF 2009 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338, 304-A OF IPC AND ACQUITTE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENTS. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.18 15:25:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri K.H. Bagi, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.553/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC is sentenced as under: “Acting U/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable IJ/s 279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence punishable U/s 337 of IPC. In default - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s 304A of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months. Sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of accused and surety stands cancelled. Office is directed to supply free certified copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.” Order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.153/2016. As such, he has preferred the present revision petition challenging the validity of the conviction and order of sentence. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under : - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 In respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 26.02.2008 at about 15:00 hours in the intervening midnight, on NH-4A road which is from Khanapur to Londa near Savargali canal, wherein a truck bearing No.KA-28/A- 5199 said to have dashed against a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-28/F-1305 resulting in inmates of the bus injured and one of the passengers by name Dastgirsab Allisab Bagwan succumbed to the injuries, a complaint came to be lodged with jurisdictional police. A case came to be registered in Crime No.21/2008 and after thorough investigation charge sheet came to filed. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., recorded the plea and accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trail was held. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 6 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-6. Among them PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 are the injured eyewitnesses being the inmates of KSRTC bus. Prosecution placed on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 record 9 documents comprising of complaint, spot mahazer, inquest mahazar, wound certificate, postmortem report, IMV report as Exs.P-1 to P-9. 6. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances including the accident. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed before the District Court in Crl.A.No.153/2016. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the conviction and sentence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri K.H. Bagi, learned counsel for revision petitioner, reiterating in the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as well and also taking note of the fact that the accident has occurred in the midnight, there was error of judgment on the part of the driver of the bus. As a result, the margin in between the vehicles could not be maintained resulting in the accident and for which, the entire negligence is thrusted upon the driver of the lorry in order to save the rigours of law insofar as the driver of the bus. Said aspect of the matter is not appreciated by both the Courts and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. He further contended that learned Trial Judge failed to note the effect of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, especially, when they are cited as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 injured witnesses resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Alternatively, Sri Bagi would contend that in the event this Court maintaining the conviction, taking note of the fact that there was a contributory negligence attributable to the driver of the bus, by enhancing the fine amount, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside. 14. Per contra, Sri Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned orders. 15. He would further contend that accused failed to challenge the charge sheet. Therefore, it is too late for the accused contend, that too, before the revisional Court that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 16. He would further contend that material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction especially PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 are injured eyewitnesses - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 being the inmates of the bus, have specifically deposed about the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, conviction of the accused and sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate needs no interference in this revision and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 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, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding Point No.1 and 2 20. In the case on hand, death of one of the inmates of the bus by name Dastagirsab Allisab Bagwan - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 having succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. Postmortem report makes it clear that Dastagirsab Allisab Bagwan died because of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 21. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 being the inmates of the same bus, are also injured witnesses. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that testimony of the injured-eyewitnesses has to be kept on high pedestal. Suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 22. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, accused did not offer any explanation to the incriminatory materials at the time of recording the accused statement. He went to the extent of even denying the accident itself. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 23. In a matter of this nature, recording of accused statement is not an empty formality. On the contrary, it is of dual purpose. 24. Firstly, it would afford a sufficient opportunity for the accused to explain the incriminatory circumstances. Recording of accused statement is thus mandatory on the part of a Magistrate. 25. Secondly, at the time of recording the accused statement, it is always scope for the accused to place on record his version about the incident. If the accused deliberately fails to utilize the said opportunity, consequence in law has to follow. 26. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1. In paragraph No.39 of the said judgment, it has been held as under : “39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 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.” 27. Keeping in background the above principles when the material evidence on record is appreciated especially in the light of arguments put forth on behalf revision petitioner by Sri Bagi, it is to be seen that accused was bound to place on record his version about the incident especially the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus. But in the case on hand, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 accused did not open his mouth except denying the incriminatory circumstances. 28. Under such circumstances, having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction as is held in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences recorded by the learned Trial magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 29. Having said thus, the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and imposed imprisonment for a period of six months. Same is the minimum sentence in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi3. Thus 30. Further, reduction of the sentence is impermissible especially in the absence of any mitigating 2 (2012) 9 SCC 460 3 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4626 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2017 circumstances placed on record. Thus taking note of the above discussion, sentence needs no modification. 31. In view of the forgoing reasons, points No.1 and 2 are answered in negative. Regarding point No.3: 32. In view of the finding of this Court in points No.1 and 2, as above, the following order is passed. ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Time is granted for the revision petition before the Trial Court till 15.04.2025 for serving the remaining part of the sentence. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39