- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1425 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI T P PRASANNA S/O PUTTACHAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, GALIHALLI CROSS, TARIKERE AT AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY TARIKERE POLICE, TARIKERE, (REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CHIKKAMAGALURU) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.09.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.72/2019 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C., TARIKERE DATED 07.03.2019 IN C.C.NO.390/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Gowthamdev C. Ulla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in C.C No.390/2016 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.72/2019. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.05.2016 at about 07.05 a.m. in Tarikere town on M.G.Road near KEB, in front of the house of Balu on the mud road by the side of cement road, criminal prosecution was launched. 3.2 In the said road traffic accident, revision petitioner was the rider of the two wheeler viz., TVS XL Super HD having T.P. No.KA:18/NT-007476/2014-15. 3.3 It is the case of the prosecution that when deceased T.D.Ranganath was moving on the footpath, petitioner in a rash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 and negligent manner rode the offending two wheeler and dashed against the pedestrian-Ranganath who fell down and sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the accidental injuries. 4. PW-1 is the complainant who set the criminal law into motion who is none other than the younger brother of deceased Ranganath. He has supported the case of the prosecution apart from PW-7 who is an eye witness to the incident. 5. The material evidence was sufficient enough for the learned Trial Magistrate to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not placed his version of the incident before the Trial Court while recording the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. View taken by the learned Trial Magistrate is justified in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2012)9 SCC 284. 7. The petitioner challenged the order of conviction before the First Appellate Court. 8. 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 inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.14 to 18 as under: 14. PW.2-Raju and PW.6-Sundaresha are the pancha witnesses to Ex.P2-Spot mahazar. PW.2 has identified his signature on Ex.P2 and stated that a mahazar was conducted on 11.05.2016 from 12 PM., to 12.30 PM at the place where accident was occurred between TVS Excel Vehicle and Ranganath and a photo has been taken as per Ex.P3 during the time of Mahazar. In his cross examination, this witness stated that he has put his signature because he had seen the place of accident. That PW.6, though he stated that mahazar has not been conducted in his presence, but he has identified his signature on the Ex.P2-Mahazar Though, both the witnesses have stated in their cross examinations that they do not know about the contents of Ex.P2, still they have admitted their signatures on Ex.P2-Mahazar. Merely, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 these witnesses have stated that they do not know the contents of Ex.P1, that would not sufficient for discard the entire testimony of these witnesses when they have specifically admitted their signature on Ex.P2-Spot Mahazar. PW.6-Sundaresh is another pancha witness to Ex.P2-Spot Mahazar but he has not supported the prosecution case. 15. PW.4-Narayanappa and PW.5-Tejkumar are the pancha witnesses to Ex.P5-Seizure mahazar. It is stated that under the said Mahazar, the offending TVS Excel Two wheeler has been seized in the presence of these witnesses. Both the witnesses have deposed that the police have seized TVS Excel Two wheeler under Mahazar- Ex.P5. Merely, in their respective cross examinations, said witnesses have stated that they do not know the contents of Ex.P5, however their entire evidence cannot be discarded, as they have specifically stated that the police have seized TVS Excel Two wheeler under Mahazar-Ex.P5. 16. PW.3-Murthy, the then ASI of Tarikere P.S., deposed about registering the case in Cr.No.186/2016 on the basis of complaint given by CW.1 and submitting the FIR to the Court. Further, he deposed about conducting of Inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P6 in the presence of pancha witnesses CW.13 and 14. Thereafter, he handed over the case file to CW.18 for further investigation in the matter. 17. PW.9- G.Devaraj is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused. He deposed regarding his entire investigation and his evidence is formal in nature, therefore, nobody denies the same. Further, this witness has specifically denied all the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 suggestion put-forth by the defense side so as to disbelieve his evidence. 18. On careful consideration of the evidence, which has been led before the Trial Court, the eye-witness PW.1 has specifically stated about rash and negligent riding of the rider of TVS Excel Two wheeler and also specifically stated that accused caused the death of deceased Ranganath. It is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that the deceased died due to the accident caused by the rider of the offending two wheeler. Even during the course of cross examination, it is not the case of the accused that he was not riding the said two wheeler at the time of alleged accident. Further, though PW.7, who is the son of deceased, has not seen the accident however he deposed in support of evidence of PW.1. That PW.4 and 5 have deposed positively about seizure of offending two wheeler under Ex.P5. Therefore, it could be held that the evidence of PW.8 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.1, 4 and 5. Further, the sketch of the spot depicted in Ex.P11 discloses that how the accident has been occurred. On perusal of the same, which substantiates the rash and negligent riding of the accused. Moreover, as per Ex.P9-Motor Vehicle Accident report the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defects of the two wheeler. Thus, going through the evidence and records, it depicts that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused/appellant. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor when the accused/appellant came to be examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has not explained his stand as to how the accident took place. When he has not made out - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 any case under such circumstances, the evidence of eye- witness and other witnesses has to be taken into consideration. The over all evidence placed on record it goes to show that there is sufficient material to show that the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Further, it has been shown that the accused rode the TVS-XL Super HD, a two wheeler having T.P No.KA:NT-007476/2014-15, Chassis No.MD621BD14F2892892 and Engine No.0DIBF1164425, without registering the same and without insurance coverage. That the accused has not produced any documents to show that the two wheeler was registered and insurance policy was in existence, at the time of accident. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and under sections 192 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act; and there is no need to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answered the Points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.” 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 10. Sri Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that the genesis of the crime as is propounded by the prosecution cannot be believed inasmuch as, a two - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 wheeler cannot get onto a footpath and then hit the pedestrian who was moving on the footpath. Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. 11. He would further contend that it is the deceased Ranganath who wanted to cross the road suddenly came on road without noticing the movement of the vehicle that was ridden by the petitioner in a moderate speed. Despite best control, the two wheeler hit Ranganath who fell down and sustained injuries and which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Sri Ullal would further contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, the imprisonment may be set aside. 13. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, would support the impugned judgments and also oppose the revision grounds including the showing of leniency to the revision petitioner by enhancing the fine amount. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, prosecution is successful in establishing the road traffic accident that occurred on M.G. Road, Tarikere Town on 10.05.2016 at about 07.05 a.m. 16. Ranganath being the pedestrian walking on the footpath succumbed to the injuries on account of the road traffic accident is established by collection of material evidence. Therefore, charge sheet filed under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code is justified. 17. Further, without getting the vehicle registered with Regional Transport Office, it was driven on the road. That itself is negligence. Without registration, vehicle was brought on the public road and there was no insurance to the said vehicle either. No explanation is forthcoming in this regard by the revision petitioner. Since it is a new vehicle whether petitioner had sufficient control to ride the vehicle is a question which remains unanswered as accused has failed to offer any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 explanation to incriminatory materials nor placed his version about the incident. 18. Therefore, conviction of the revision petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 192 and 196 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act is based on sound appreciation of the material evidence on record. 19. Admittedly, neither PW-1 nor PW-7 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity as against the revision petitioner to falsely implicate him in the incident. Moreover, the offending vehicle was not possessing the insurance. Therefore, the theory put forward on behalf of the accused that to gain the compensation, false case has been filed against the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. 20. Further, in a matter of this nature, petitioner is required to place on record his version about the incident after prosecution successfully establishes its case. 21. In the case on hand, petitioner/accused failed to do so and he even went to the extent of denying the very accident - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 itself at the time of recording the his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too, with the limited scope of revisional Jurisdiction. View of this Court is supported by principles of law enunciated in the case of Ravi Kapur vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2012)9 SCC 284. 23. Having said so, this Court noted that the learned Trial Magistrate has awarded one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Same needs to be reduced to six months by exercising the revisional powers of this Court following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182. 24. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20528 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2022 (ii) While maintaining conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, sentence of one year imprisonment ordered for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to six months. (iii) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Magistrate to serve the remaining part of the sentence on or before 30th April 2026. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 78