- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.613 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: ABUSALI S/O ISMAIL BEARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KARAYA HOUSE, URUVAL VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K-577228 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKAS M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTUR TRAFFIC POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.04.2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.139/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2016, PASSED IN C.C.NO.337/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Vikas M, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction dated 25.08.2016 passed in C.C No.337/2014 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 146 r/w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.139/2016 dated 05.04.2018 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, is the revision petitioner. 3. The revision petitioner/accused was sentenced as under: Offence punishable under Section Sentence Fine Default sentence 279 IPC --- Rs.1,000/- Two months’ simple imprisonment 338 IPC --- Rs.1,000/- Three months’ simple imprisonment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 304A IPC Four months rigorous imprisonment + two months’ simple imprisonment Rs.5,000/- Three months’ simple imprisonment 146 r/w 196 of the Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988 --- Rs.1,000/- Two months’ simple imprisonment 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.05.2013, Puttur Traffic police filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner who is the driver of a private bus bearing certificate of registration No.KA21/P-3777 resulting in death of a motorcycle rider. 5. After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.139/2016. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, especially, the oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who are the eye witnesses to the incident, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 8. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 9. Sri Vikas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is aged 62 years at present, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, sentence of six months may be set aside. 11. Per contra, Sri Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds and supports the impugned judgment by contending that the negligent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 driving of the bus by the revision petitioner is witnessed by PW- 2 and PW-3 who have specifically deposed before the Court and supported the case of the prosecution by detailing out the incident with graphic details and they have withstood the searching cross-examination and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. He would further contend that there cannot be any scope for showing leniency to the revision petitioner/accused, as a valuable human life has been lost on account of the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of material on record, even though revision petitioner/accused tried to impress upon the Court that he was not the driver of the bus, the indemnity bond executed by the owner of the bus would make it clear that revision petitioner was the driver of the bus in question as on the date of incident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 15. Only on the ground that the eyewitness was not able to depose before the Court the name of the accused, identity of the accused cannot be disputed and the argument put forth on behalf of the accused that he was not the driver of the bus in question cannot be countenanced in law. 16. Further, accused himself did not plead so before the learned Trial Magistrate at the time of recording the accused statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Admittedly, the oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 who were the eye witnesses to the incident would make it clear that it is the rash and negligent driving of the accused which has resulted in death of the motorcycle rider. 18. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the accused as to the efforts made by him to avoid the accident. On the contrary, he has denied the very accident itself. 19. Taking note of these aspects of the matter the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 20. Moreover in a matter of this nature accused is expected to place his version on record at the time of recording the accused's statement. If the accused deliberately fails to offer any explanation, then consequences in law should follow. 21. 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 Rajasthan reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 wherein 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.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 22. Thus order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. 23. Having said so, the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A IPC is only six months. 24. Following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182, and in the absence of any valid and mitigating circumstances, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the sentence ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 25. Merely on the ground that accused is now aged 62 years, the sentence of imprisonment cannot be set aside. 26. Admittedly, the incident has occurred in the year 2013 in the broad daylight and hardly there was any scope for error of judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13645 CRL.RP No. 613 of 2018 27. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition dismissed. (ii) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 31st March 2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69