- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1060 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: DUGGAPPA POOJARY S/O ITHAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT IYARABETTU MANE KARIYANGALA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, UDUPI – 575251 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANURAG KINI.K FOR SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY HIRIADKA POLICE STATION UDUPI, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, 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 DATED 06.08.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.8/2015 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.No.87/2012 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Anurag Kini K, advocate for Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M. M. learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.87/2012 dated 28.01.2015 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, confirmed by the judgment dated 06.08.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.8/2015 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Udupi, is the revision petitioner. 3. 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 04.06.2011, at about 04.15 p.m. near Hiriadka Police Station main gate at Anjar Village, Udupi, involving a bus bearing registration No.KL-14/G-5303 and an auto rickshaw bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 registration No.KA-20/A-6652, wherein a precious human life has been lost and several other inmates of the auto rickshaw were injured, a complaint came to be lodged by driver of another auto rickshaw to set the criminal law into motion. 4. Police after registering the case for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused. 5. Presence of the accused was secured after taking cognizance and receiving charge sheet, and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine eleven witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and placed on record fifteen documentary evidence which are exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-15. However there was duplication of the numbers of the exhibits and therefore, there was a note that Exhibits 9 to 15 were to be read as Exhibits P-9 to Exhibit P-18. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, learned Trial Magistrate culled out the incriminatory circumstances found in the case of the prosecution and put it across to the accused for his explanation as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the accident and did not place his version about the incident on record nor placed any defence evidence. 9. Thereafter learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused who is the driver of the bus and sentenced him as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.PC the accused is hereby convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) of I.P.C. The accused is further convicted to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, in addition to the above said imprisonment.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.8/2015. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of sentence. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 13. Sri Anurag Kini, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that admittedly the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-20/A-6652 was having passengers more than its capacity and driver of the auto rickshaw lost the balance and control over the auto rickshaw and hit against the bus. The police have falsely filed the charge sheet against the accused and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. He would further contend that material evidence on record comprises of several contradictions in the cross- examination of PWs-1 to 3 and 11, which has been ignored by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the order of conviction and therefore, the impugned orders are not only illegal but has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, sentence of six months for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sentence of one month for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC may be set aside. 16. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the impugned judgments and opposes the revision grounds. 17. She would further contend that PWs-1 to 3 being the injured eye witnesses, did not nurture any previous enmity against the revision petitioner to falsely implicate him in the incident and they being the inmates of the auto rickshaw, have sustained injuries and therefore their testimony is properly appreciated by both the Courts while convicting the accused and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 18. She would further contend that there are no mitigating circumstances placed on record on behalf of the accused to set aside the imprisonment and therefore sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material law on record, the road traffic accident occurred on 04.06.2011 at about 04.15 p.m. in front of Hiriadka Police Station Main Road, Anjaru Village, Udupi Taluk involving bus bearing No.KL-14/G-5303 and auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-20/A-6652 and one of the inmates of the auto rickshaw by name Appi Panara, losing his life is established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. 21. Admittedly, the accused has been identified by PW-1 to PW-3 who are the inmates of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the accused being the driver of the offending bus. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 22. Further, accused did not challenge the filing of the charge sheet to appreciate the contention that it is the auto rickshaw driver who is responsible for the road traffic accident. 23. Therefore, the Trial Magistrate rightly appreciated the material evidence placed on record especially the oral testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-11 in recording a finding of guilt insofar as the accused is concerned. 24. Pertinently, accused failed to offer any explanation to the incriminatory circumstances found in the case of the prosecution evidence and did not also choose to place his version about the incident inasmuch as, if the accident has not occurred on account of his fault and the accident has occurred on account of the fault of the rickshaw driver. 25. It is also pertinent to note that the accused has gone to the extent of denying the very accident itself at the time of recording the accused's statement. Moreover, the IMV report did not mention anything about the mechanical defect in the offending bus. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 26. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 27. Further, in a matter of this nature, accused was bound to place his version about the incident at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he having failed to do so, consequences in law has been followed by both the Courts. 28. 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 284. 29. This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner that the sentence needs to be modified by setting aside the imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A and Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 30. No mitigating circumstances are placed on record on behalf of the accused to reduce the sentence, more so, when - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 the accused has denied the very accident itself and did not choose to take any steps to shift the injured persons to the hospital. 31. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and following the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182, the alternate submission cannot be countenanced in law. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion, alternate submission would not stand for merit and therefore same is to be rejected. 33. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Revision Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence on or before 30th April 2026. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19139 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2018 Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order, forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 71