Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Mahesh vs State By Madiwala on 13 March, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15256
CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.612 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. M MAHESH
S/O LATE SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/A No.6, RUKKAMMA BUILDING,
7TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY MADIWALA TRAFFIC POLICE,
MADIVALA, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
Digitally signed
by R
MANJUNATHA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
KARNATAKA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.1197/2016
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED
21.09.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU
IN C.C.No.664/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15256
CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri G.S. Venkat Subba Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.664/2015 and sentenced as under which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1197/2016 is the revision petitioner:
"Acting U/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC and 134(b) r/w 187, 119 r/w 177 of IMV Act.
The accused is sentenced for the offence U/s 279 of IPC, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The accused is also sentenced for the offence U/s 304 (A) of IPC, to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only) and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR The accused is sentenced for the offences punishable U/s.134 (B) r/w 187 of IMV Act to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
The accused is also sentenced for the offence U/s 119 of IMV Act, to undergo S.I. for a period of one month and pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rs.One Hundred only) and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of two days.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled."
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 20.12.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Police Station, accused being the driver of a private bus bearing registration No.K.A.05/AD-1989, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner near the Silk Board Junction by jumping the traffic signal from Marathalli towards BTM layout, dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration No.K.A.05/HZ-0941, whereby rider of the motorcycle by name -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR G.S. Ajish, aged about 28 years fell down on the road and as a result of the same, hind wheel of the bus ran over his head and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3.2. However, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus and went further and near the Rupena Agrahara Aspad Hospital dashed to a car bearing registration No.K.A.05/MP-4361 which was parked near the Aspad Hospital and damaged the said car and without even informing the police fled away from the spot.
4. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134 (b) r/w Section 187, 119 r/w Section 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Learned Trial Magistrate after securing the records, recorded the plea. 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 P.W.1 to P.W.11 and relied on twelve documentary evidence which were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR
7. Detailed cross examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution or to prove the innocence of the accused.
8. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure is recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the accidental death of Ajish and damage caused to the car bearing registration No.KA-05/MP-4361 near Aspad Hospital.
9. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge considering the rival contentions of the parties convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra, inter alia, holding in paragraphs 28 to 34 as under:
"28. On going through the documentary evidence are coupled with oral evidence of PW-1, 2, 3 5 and 6 to 11 it can safely be held that the accused was driving of the aforesaid bus on the date of accident. It is also not in dispute that the road in question where accident took place in public road.
29. Further, it is not the defence of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the aforesaid has the Ex.P-9 IMV Report disclose that the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR accident is not due to the mechanical defect of the bus.
30. Now only question remains before the Court it whether this accident is due to rash or negligent driving of the accused or not. The fact that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of which the aforesaid bus ran over her is remained unchallenged. Whereas the accused has offered explanation that the deceased Ajish himself hit another vehicle not on the fault of the offending bus. The suggestion put to the PW- to 3, by the defence counsel which are extracted below for better appreciation. "CfñïUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁºÀ£À rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ SÁ¸ÀV §¹ì¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ DV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è"
31. It is well settled principles of law that once prosecution proved alleged facts then the onus shift on used to disprove the same and prove his defence. In the present case prosecution has proved by oral evidence and documentary evidence.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Joseph V/s State of Kerala case reported in AIR 2000 (5) SC Page 19 that the accused inspite of explaining incriminating circumstances totally denies everything when those circumstances were brought to the notice by the Court. Such denial provides missing link unmistably and inevitably leads to the guilt of the accused.
33. The above principles are applicable to case on hand. In present case also accused not explained -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR incriminating circumstances but denied everything. This has lead the guilt of accused.
34. Ex.P-11 is the Sketch and in which it is clearly shown that the accident was occurred on the middle of the road, and the accident was due to the bus driven by the accused hit the two wheeler and this is very much evidential from Ex.P-2 Panchanama and Ex.P-11 Rough sketch and also evidence of PW-1 to 3 and 6 to 11. The evidence of Eye-witnesses and Pancha witness and evidence of Investigation Officer proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the accused. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the accused being driver of the above said bus drove it on public road in rash and negligent manner and caused death of deceased Ajish not amounting culpable homicide. Hence, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative."
10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.1197/2016.
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, in the light of the appeal grounds, dismissed the appeal by considered -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR judgment dated 28.03.2017, inter alia holding in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:
"26. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 to PW11, coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and PW3 to PW5, which clearly disclose that very accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus by the accused at the material point of time. In this regard, trial court by appreciating the evidence of PW1, PW3 to PW5 as well as Ex.P.2, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.11, has rightly come to held that very accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus at the material point of time. During the course of argument learned counsel for accused would submit that the very accident alleged to have took place at about 10.30PM at Silk Board junction. However, evidence of PW8 B.V.Venkatesh discloses that there will no traffic signal at Silk Board junction from 10.30PM to 7.00AM. It is pertinent to note that the very case of prosecution alleged to have took place at about 10.30PM. It is pertinent note that at Ex.P.1 time of alleged incident mentioned as "at about 10.30PM".
Therefore, it is improper to come to the conclusion that alleged incident took place exactly 10.30PM. Therefore, it is be presumed that alleged incident took place around 10.30PM. Hence, very contention of learned counsel for accused is not at all helpful to the accused to get over from the alleged incident. That apart, learned Magistrate by appreciating the evidence of -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR prime witnesses like PW1 and PW3 to PW5, has rightly held that very incident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus by the accused. More so, evidence of PW5 clearly establishes that at the material point of time, offending bus was driven by the accused. Suffice it say, evidence of PW5 discloses that at the relevant point of time he was the cleaner in the said bus. It is also relevant to note that while examining the accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, through out he disputes evidence of PW1 to PW5. In my view, when the prosecution has proved that the alleged incident took place at the alleged scene of offence and at the material point of time accused was the driver of offending bus, as per Sec.106 of Evidence Act, certainly it is the accused has to explain how and under what circumstances alleged incident took place. However, accused has not offered any explanation in his examination u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, non explanation by the accused during the course of examination u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, which goes against him. Suffice it to say, in this regard, trial court at para 32 has also relied the ratio laid down in AIR 2000 (5) SC 19- Joseph V/s state of Kerala. Ratio laid down in the very case law, is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, in view of principles laid down in the said case law, certainly mere denial of incriminating evidence by the accused, will not save him from the case. In my view, certainly trail court has not committed any error in holding that very accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR offending bus by the accused, resulting in, it has dashed into motorcycle driven by deceased and as a result he fell down and at that juncture rear wheel of offending bus, ran over the head of deceased and thereby he succumbed at the spot.
27. On going through the materials available on record, it clearly disclose that accused after causing the accident has not at all intimated the same to nearest police station. Suffice it to say, evidence on record also discloses that accused has clearly violated traffic rules, since at the material point of time of accident, though there was traffic red signal at scene of offence, accused drove the offending bus, resulting in accident took place. It is the case of prosecution that after causing the accident, the accused without intimating the said fact to the nearest police, has ran away from the scene of offence. Trial court by appreciating evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that accused without intimating the said fact to the nearest police, has committed an offence p/u/Sec.134-A r/w 187, 119 r/w 177 of I.M.V. Act and hence, trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused. In my view any stretch of imagination, findings of trail court cannot be set aside, since trial court by assigning sound reasons, has well appreciated the evidence on record while convicting and sentencing the accused and based on settle position of law, it has rightly come to the conclusion that accused has committed the offences alleged. Hence, I am of the considered view that at any stretch of imagination conclusion arrived at by the trial
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR court in convicting and sentencing accused cannot be set aside. Hence, I concur with the findings of the trail court. Therefore, in the circumstances, Appeal is to be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment. For the foregoing reasons, I answer point No.1 in Negative."
12. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court in this revision.
13. Sri G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence and the line of defence taken by the accused by suggesting the defence theory to the prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice and thus sought for allowing the revision.
14. Alternatively, Sri Venkata Subba Rao would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, the sentence be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and thus sought for allowing the revision.
15. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the revision grounds
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR and contend that a valuable human life has been lost and the accused ran away from the spot without stopping the bus and again dashed against the car which shows the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused and therefore, conviction is just and proper and revision needs to be dismissed.
16. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record there is no dispute that the accused was the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-05/AD-1989.
18. Further, the charge sheet filed against the accused is not challenged by the accused in the light of the defence taken on behalf of the accused that there were two more vehicles involved in the incident.
19. If the accused is not responsible for the accidental death of Ajish as is sought to be portrayed before this Court, what prevented the accused himself to inform the police about the incident that because of the intervening of two more vehicles, Ajish has lost his life.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR
20. These factors coupled with the denial of all the incriminatory materials at the time of recording the accused statement would be sufficient enough to conclude that accused is guilty of the offence alleged against him.
21. Recording of an accused statement in a criminal trial is not an empty formality. It serves dual purpose. Firstly, it would afford an opportunity for the accused to explain the incriminatory circumstances found against him.
22. Secondly, it would afford a reasonable opportunity in a matter of this nature to place his version about the incident.
23. In the case on hand, since the accused has taken a specific defence that he is not responsible for the accidental death of Ajish and it is the two more vehicles which were responsible, such a version should have been placed before the Court by examining the accused by himself or at least placing written submissions in this regard.
24. If an accused deliberately fails to make use of such an opportunity, then the consequences in law has to follow.
25. No doubt it is the prosecution which is required to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR But once the prosecution places the necessary material on record it is for the accused to explain those circumstances.
26. In the case on hand, since the accused has deliberately failed to make use of the opportunity granted to him, consequences have been recorded by the Trial Magistrate and learned judge in the First Appellate Court.
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 vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 284.
28. As such, conviction order recorded by Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
2. Having said thus, the accused being the driver of the bus and incident has occurred at 10.30 p.m. there is scope for possibility of the human error. Therefore, granting the one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code needs to be reduced to six months by following the principles of law, enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs SAURABH BAKSHI, reported
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR in (2015) 5 SCC 182 wherein their Lordships in paragraph 14 and 15 have held as under:
14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone, that is, 15 days. The Court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction :
(Balwinder Singh case [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC pp.
186-87, para 12) "12. ... '1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.
***
13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.' (Dalbir Singh case [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana,(2000) 5 SCC 82:2004 SCC (Cri) 1208],SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 & 13)"
15. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The two-Judge Bench referred to Dalbir Singh [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence. Be it stated, in the said case a passage from Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 719 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 17] was quoted : (B. Nagabhushanam case [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] , SCC p. 735, para 16) "16. ... '5. Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb.
Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The State, we hope, will attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. Maybe, the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR State may consider, in case of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion.' (Rattan Singh case [(1979) 4 SCC 719 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21, para 5)"
29. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that period of imprisonment ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the proved offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code needs to be reduced from one year to six months.
30. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(b), 187, 119 and 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate of one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15256 CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017 HC-KAR Penal Code is reduced to six months simple imprisonment.
(iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
(iv) Accused is directed to appear before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence on or before 31.03.2026.
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47