- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 883 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. KESHAVA M.M. S/O LATE MANDANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT D NO 650/1, 1ST MAIN 6TH A CROSS KEMPEGOWDANAGARA, T DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 571 423 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY K.R.TRAFFIC POLICE MYSORE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 01 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.690/2012 DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND IN CRL.A.NO.346/2019 DATED 23.02.2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,304A OF IPC AND SEC.134(A)(B) R/W 187 OF IMV ACT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Raju C. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused challenging the order of conviction passed in CC No.690/2012 dated 14.10.2019 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.346/2019 dated 23.02.2022 and ordered to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short) and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter ‘IMV Act’ for short). 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 14.04.2012, involving a motorcycle bearing No.KA-09/EK-7911 and a canter lorry bearing No.KA.01/B-4673, a complaint came to be lodged with K.R.Nagar Traffic Zone Police. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 3.2. The injured being the motorcycle rider, was shifted to B.G.S. Apollo Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries and therefore, offence under Section 304A of IPC along with offence under Sections 279 and 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act was invoked and charge sheet came to be filed after thorough investigation. 4. Presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, in all, seven witnesses were examined and twelve documents were placed on record. 6. As against the material evidence placed on record, there was no defence evidence and accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were put to him under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 14.10.2019, convicted the accused inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.21 to 25 as under: “21. Even though PW.2 and PW.5 are belongs to the same village of deceased, but only on that ground their evidence cannot be rejected. Further as per decision reported in 200(3) criminal court cases 519(SC) in case of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that “Evidence of related witness cannot be discarded merely for the reasons that witness is close related witness.” So in this case also PW.2 is eye witness, who is belongs to the deceased Mahadev village, deposed about the accident and also he has identified the accused. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be rejected. 22. So in this case, as per the prosecution the accused being the driver of Canter bearing No.KA-01-B- 4673 driven in rash and negligent manner and in high speed in Nanjangud – Mysuru Road and made accident to motor cycle bearing No.KA-09-EK-7911 riding by deceased Mahadevu. But there is no dispute regarding the accident and also death of deceased Mahadevu in the accident. But the prosecution has to prove that the accused being the driver of Canter driven in high speed and negligent manner in public road made the accident to motor cycle of deceased Mahadev. 23. In this case the PW.1 who lodged the complaint is hearsay witness deposed that after hearing about accident, he came to the spot. But PW.1 deposed that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 one Kumar has informed him regarding the accident. The said Kumar is PW.2 who is eye witness to accident has deposed about the accident and he also identified the accused. Even though PW.5 also alleged to be eye witness to accident, but he deposed that after hearing accident sound he went to the spot. Hence, on the basis of oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5, the deceased Mahadevu was died due to injuries caused in the accident. 24. So, in this case, prosecution has alleged that, accused has driven the Canter in a rash and negligent manner in a public road, and committed an offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The Section 279 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows; 'Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person is punishable.' So in this case also the accused being the driver of Canter bearing No.KA-01-B-4673 driven in high speed and negligent manner in public road, made accident to motor cycle of deceased. Even though accused denied about his negligence, but he has not given any explanation in 313 statement to deny the said accident. 25. Further as per the decision reported in 2012(5) KAR.L.J. 346, in case of Janardhanachari Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that, “Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act, mandates that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 person like driver of offending vehicle who has special knowledge of the occurrence of the accident should explain as to how the accident occurred, when opportunity was made available to him under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.” But in this case, the accused has not given any explanation in his 313 statement regarding the said accident. So on the basis of the material placed before the court, the prosecution proved that due to high speed and negligent driving of Canter by the accused, the accident was happened. Further the motor cycle rider Mahadevu died due to the injuries caused in the accident. Hence, prosecution proved the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. Therefore, Point No.1 and 2 are answerd in the Affirmative.” 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.346/2019. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 23.02.2022, dismissed the appeal by reappreciating the material evidence inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.22 to 25 as under: “22. At the spot of the accident, there is a cross road joining the main road. Therefore, the driver of the tempo should have been vigilant while driving his vehicle and should have observed the traffic on the road. The motor - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 cycle was coming from the opposite direction. The road is a straight road. It is the defence of the accused that he could not see the motor cycle before the accident. The materials clearly prove that if the driver of the tempo was slow he could have avoided the accident. It is not the defence of the accused that the rider of the motor cycle took a sudden turn without giving any signal and therefore he could not stop his vehicle. 23. The Trial Court has rightly held that it is for the accused to explain as to how the accident has occurred and why there is no negligence on his part in the occurrence of the accident which he has failed to explain in the statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C and in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the relevant materials and has come to the right conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and this Court does not find any ground to differ with this finding of the Trial Court. 24. The accused has left the spot and has not informed the matter to the nearest police station and has also not taken the injured to the hospital. Therefore, he is guilty of the offences punishable U/s 134(a) & (b) read with 187 of IMV Act. 25. There is no dispute about the death of Mahadeva in the accident. Hence, the finding of the Trial Court that the Accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(a)&(b) read with 187 of IMV Act is correct and does not call for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 interference by this Court. Hence, this Point is answered in the Negative.” 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, by enhancing the fine amount, reasonably, which can be paid as compensation to the dependents to the deceased, may set aside the order of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 14. He would further contend in the case on hand, without even attending the injured, accused escaped from the scene of offence and therefore, Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act, was also invoked by the investigation agency. 15. He would further contend that injured was shifted to the hospital and he succumbed to the injuries and therefore, there is no dispute that the Mahadev lost his life. 16. Eye witnesses to the incident are P.W.2 and 5. They have withstood the searching cross-examination who did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity as against the petitioner herein to depose falsely nor extra affinity towards the deceased or his family members. 17. Both the Courts have rightly appreciated the testimony of the eye witnesses and has rightly concluded that it is the negligent driving of the canter lorry, resulted in accidental death of Mahadev and therefore, order of conviction is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 18. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, he would contend that in a matter of this nature, no lenience can be shown and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto more so in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, death of motorcycle rider in BGS Apollo hospital on account of the accidental injuries sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on 14.12.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. involving bearing No.KA-09/EK-7911 and a canter lorry bearing No.KA-01/B- 4673 is not in dispute. 21. Accused being the driver of the canter lorry as on the date of accident is established. 22. P.W.2 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. They have deposed before the Court about the accident with graphic details. Searching cross-examination of those witnesses did not yield any positive result so as to disbelieve their oral testimony. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 23. As rightly contended on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.2 and 5 did not nurture any previous enmity as against the accused to depose falsely against him so as to falsely implicate him in the incident. 24. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in recording the order of conviction. 25. Further, in a matter of this nature, accused is expected to explain the incriminatory circumstances found against him and place on record his version about the incident at the time of recording the accused statement. 26. If the accused fails to deliberately make use of such an opportunity granted to him at the time of accused statement, consequences in law has to be followed. 27. View of this Court, in this regard, is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 28. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 29. This would take this Court to the next limb of the argument namely showing lenience to the accused. 30. In the first place, accused did not even attend the injured person soon after the incident. Further, no mitigating circumstances are neither placed before the court nor pleaded. 31. Further, at the time of recording the accused statement, accused has gone to the extent of denying the very accident itself. 32. 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 v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, this Court is of the considered opinion that imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC needs no interference that too the revisional jurisdiction. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14718 CRL.RP No. 883 of 2022 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is granted to the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 31.03.2026 to undergo the sentence. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42