- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100055 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD SAYYED S/O AZARUDDIN SAYYED AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HALIYAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRL.A.NO.5010/2015, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.11.2015 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, HALIYAL, AT HALIYAL IN C.C.NO.20/2013 THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 279, 337 & 304(A) OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, and learned High Court Government Pleader-Sri.Kiritilata R. Patil, for the parties. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.20/2013 and sentenced as under: -:ORDER:- “Acting under section 255(2) of the Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Failures on the part of the accused pay the fine he shall also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Acting under section, 255(2) of the Cr.Р.С. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 337. of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Failures on the part of the accused pay the fine he - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 shall also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days. Acting under section 255(2) of the Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-. Failures on the part of the 30 accused pay the fine he shall also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. All the sentences shall runs concurrently. His bail bound and surety bond shall stand cancelled.” 3. Accused filed an appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentenced in Criminal Appeal No.5010/2015. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 06.06.2012 at about 10.00 p.m., involving the tanker bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 number KA-22/B-3113 on Haliyal-Yellapur road near Bhagvati Village Bridge, a complaint came to be lodged. In the road traffic accident, several persons were sustained injuries and two persons succumbed to those injuries. 7. Based on the complaint, the Haliyal Police registered a case, investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the accused, who was the driver of the tanker and had also sustained minor injuries in the incident. 8. After due trial, he was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5010 of 2015, which on contest came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.12.2018. 10. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly taken note of the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted and sought for allowing the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 12. Alternatively, he would contend that the petitioner was prepared to pay reasonable compensation to the dependants of the deceased and therefore, the sentence of one year imposed for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code be set-aside and sought for allowing the revision of petition to that extent. 13. Per contra, Smt.Keertilatha R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the revision grounds. She would further contend that because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused, incident has occurred wherein two valuable lives have been lost and several persons were injured, which shows that accused was responsible for the accidental death of two persons and therefore, no mercy can be shown and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 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, it is crystal clear that the vehicle involved in the accident was a tanker lorry, which did not have permission to carry the gracious passengers. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 16. Further, the cabin capacity was limited to the driver and two persons. However, several persons were carried in the cabin and therefore, negligence is per se attributable to the accused. 17. No doubt, on the day of the incident, it was raining. If it is so, it was all the more necessary for the revision petitioner to take extra care and caution in driving the lorry in a proper manner, especially when more number of persons has occupied the cabin than the permissible limit and the accused being a professional driver. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and on account of the sudden encounter near the bridge, the accused applied the brake. The incident occurred at 10.00 p.m., when the tanker lorry toppled down and fell into a ditch. In the said incident, several persons sustained injuries and two persons succumbed to those injuries. 19. Considering these aspects, all the ingredients of the prosecution is successful in establishing the incident in view of the injured persons having supported the case of the prosecution. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 20. Further, in a matter of this nature, the explanation or version of the accused assumes importance in assessing the degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Such an opportunity is afforded to the accused by recording the accused statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. Recording of the accused’s statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure serves dual purposes. Firstly, it would afford the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him. 22. Secondly, it would allow an opportunity for the accused to place his version on record about the incident, as he is part of the act. 23. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, consequences in law shall follow. In the present case, the trial Magistrate has rightly drawn such consequences, as the accused went to the extent of denying the very occurrence of the accident itself. 24. The view of this Court in this regard is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan1, wherein the relevant paragraph reads 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.” 25. Further, because of the negligent driving of the lorry by the accused, two valuable lives were lost and several persons sustained injuries. Therefore, awarding one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper. In fact, the sentence is on the lower side and in the absence of any 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019 appeal by the State, there cannot be any enhancement of the sentence. 26. This view of the Court is further fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Kapur (supra). 27. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever, much less good grounds, to allow the revision petition. 28. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) The accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 28.02.2026 to serve the sentence. Order accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 27