- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100214 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PAVADEPPA S/O HANUMAPPA CHILAKAMUKI, AGED. 71 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING REG. NO. KA 37/TA 3398 AND TRAILOR NO. KA 37/ TA 820, R/O. CHIKKABOMMANAL, TALUK. KOPPAL, DISTRICT. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THOUGH GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 OF CR.P.C. R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYED THAT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22/07/2013, PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI IN C.C.NO.122/2013, CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 25/09/2020, PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI), IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38/2013, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE ACQUITTED FROM Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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) 1. Heard Sri. C. R. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused in C.C. No.122/2013 convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Gangavathi2, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. In respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 13.12.2012, at night hours on Musalpur-Kanakagiri road near Karadigudda, involving Tata Ape Goods vehicle bearing 1 For short, ‘IPC’ 2 For short, ‘the Trial Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 No.KA 37/9687 and tractor and trailer bearing No.KA 37/TA-3398, a complaint came to be lodged with Gangavathi Rural Police Station. 5. The police registered a case in Crime No.121/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Sections 181, 196 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. In the incident, two persons lost their lives and several injured. After thorough investigation, police filed the charge sheet and accused was secured. 7. The learned Trial Judge recorded the plea of the accused and accused pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, seventeen witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17, comprising of complainant, injured witnesses, mahazar witnesses, Investigation Officers and doctor who issued wound certificate and postmortem report. Prosecution placed on record twenty-one documents which were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P21, comprising of spot mahazar, complaint, inquest mahazar, wound certificates, Postmortem report of deceased persons, indemnity bonds and statements. 9. On conclusion of recording of evidence of the prosecution, accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 was recorded wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the accident but did not choose to place any evidence on record nor his version about the incident. 10. Thereafter, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as under: “Action U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, and R/w.Sec.181, 196 and 187 of IMV Act. The accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, and further accused 3 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 30 days. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- for the offences punishable U/Sec.337 and 338 of IPC in default accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. Further, accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable U/Sec.181, 196 and 187 of IMV Act, in default accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. Sentence shall run concurrently. Bail bond of the accused and surety stands cancelled. Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused free of cost.” 11. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.38/2013. The State also filed a revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.46/2013 seeking enhancement of the sentence before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (sitting at Gangavathi)4. 4 For short, ‘the First Appellate Court’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal as well as revision petition. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present revision petition, whereas, the State has not chosen to file any further proceedings as against the non-enhancement of the sentence. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the ground urged in the petition vehemently contended that the learned judge in the First Appellate Court failed to note that there was no negligence on the part of the accused and wrongly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 15. He would further contend that the incident has occurred in the night hours and therefore, the question of accused being guilty of the offences would not arise and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 16. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State supports the impugned order. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing all ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC? 2) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity? 3) Whether the sentence is excessive or not? 4) What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 19. In the case on hand, road traffic accident that occurred involving Tata Ape Goods vehicle bearing No.KA 37/9687 and tractor and trailer bearing No.KA 37/TA-3398 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 on Musalpur-Kanakagiri road near Karadigudda, is not in dispute. 20. Injured eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. Post mortem reports of inmates namely Shivamma and Savitramma would conclusively establish the loss of two valuable human lives in the incident. 21. All the injured witnesses and complainant have specifically deposed that it is the negligent driving of the accused resulted in the accident and as much as he did not show dip and dim of the headlight and as such, the tractor came from the opposite direction and hit the vehicle and whereby goods auto vehicle turtled down and passengers fell down and two persons namely Shivamma and Savitramma died on the spot. 22. The nature of the accident and gravity thereof is thus visible by virtue of loss of two lives on the spot. Further, accused ran away from the spot without even looking for medical aid to the injured persons. It is the other - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 commuters who have shifted the injured persons to the hospital and complaint came to be lodged and thereafter, the investigation has been completed. 23. These aspects of the matter is borne out from the records and accused failed to offer any explanation whatsoever to the incriminatory circumstances nor placed his version about the incident. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. 24. In a matter of this nature, accused is bound to offer explanation to the incriminatory circumstances and place his version on record at the time of recording the accused's statement. If he deliberately fails to do so, consequences in law should follow as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan5. Thus, conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences is just and proper. 5 (2012) 9 SCC 284 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 25. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative respectively. Regarding Point No.3: 26. In the case on hand two valuable lives have been lost and besides several other persons injured. The revision petition filed by the State has been dismissed and the State did not pursue the matter further, is noted by this Court and therefore, there cannot be any enhancement of the sentence in the revision petition filed by the State. 27. Taking note of the same, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate is on the lower side. But, in the revision of the accused, this Court cannot enhance the sentence. 28. Hence, Point No.3 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.4: 29. In view of findings of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1226 CRL.RP No. 100214 of 2020 ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is meritless and thereby dismissed. (ii) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 20.02.2026. (iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with the copy of this order. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20