Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Tippa Hallir vs The State By The Sub Inspector Of Police on 21 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678
CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100220 OF 2020
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH S/O TIPPA HALLIR
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. MUDKANI, HONNAVAR TALUK,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581334.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SIDDAPUR, BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE
ADDL. SPP.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD 580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
SIRSI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.5014/2016 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
Dharwad Bench
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT
SIDDAPUR DATED 02/03/2016 IN C.C.NO.392/2013 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 279, 337, 338 AND 304-A IPC AND BY
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE AND FINE FOR PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 337, 338 OF IPC AND MODIFIED THE ORDER
SENTENCE BY REDUCING TO 8 MONTHS IN RESPECT OF SECTION
304A OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 337, 338, 304A OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE REVISION
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678
CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Lingesh V. Kattemane, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.392/2013 is the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5014/2016.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged with Siddapura Police Station by Sri G.S.Raghavendra Rao, who was inmate of a Maruthi Eeco car bearing certificate of registration No.KA05/MM-
62 intimating the police that on 06.02.2013 at about 03.45 pm in the Mavingundi-Honnavar road nearby C.D.Bridge of Hejani Siddapur Taluk, accused being the driver of the goods vehicle bearing certificate of registration No.KA-47/2062 drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruthi car stated -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR supra resulting in road traffic accident whereby inmates of the car sustained injuries. Sri Sampathkumar, one of the inmates, died because of the accidental injuries sustained by him.
4. The police, after receipt of the complaint registered the case for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
5. After receipt of the charge sheet, trial magistrate took cognizance, secured the presence of the accused recorded plea wherein accused pleaded not guilty.
6. Therefore, trial was held in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. Prosecution examined eight witnesses comprising of complainant, panch witnesses, injured witnesses and investigation agency as PWs-1 to 8 and placed on record eleven documents which are exhibited and marked as Exs. P-1 to P-11 comprising of complaint, spot mahzar, rough sketch of the place of incident, IMA report, inquest mahzar, postmortem report, wound certificate and FIR.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR
7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not choose to offer any explanation whatsoever to the incident nor placed any defence evidence.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by considering the material evidence available on record, convicted the accused and sentenced as under:
"The Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. Hence, he is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C.
The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.279 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
The accused is also hereby sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/s.337 of I.P.C. and in default of payment -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused is also hereby sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.338 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
Further, the accused is also hereby sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.304(A) of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
All the above said sentences shall run concurrently.
Out of the fine amount, the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to C.W.12 by name Sarvajna Bhattacharya and Rs.3,000/- to the family of deceased M. Sampathkumar as a compensation as per Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused and surety taken during trial stage stand cancelled.
The bail bonds of the accused and surety taken as per Section 437A Cr.P.C exist for a period of 6 months from this date.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR M.Os.1 & 2 seized in P.F.No.5/2013 (P.R.No.52/2013) being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the completion of the appeal period.
Furnish the free copy of this Judgement to the accused forthwith."
9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5014/2016.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 21.10.2020 allowed the appeal in part by reducing the punishment from one year to eight months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia holding at paragraph Nos.17 to 24 as under:
"17. This Court is of the considered opinion that, PW.1, 4 to 6 the Informant and material witnesses to the incident have categorically deposed that, while they were coming from Bangaramakki temple towards Sagar near Hejani village the Accused came from their opposite side driving his Goods Lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the middle portion of their vehicle causing injuries to the inmates, leading to the death of Sampathakumar.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR
18. A perusal of Ex.P.3 the spot of accident sketch discloses that, the accident has taken place on the left side of Honnavar-Mavingundi road. The spot of accident is situated 7 feet from left side Honnavar-Mavindgundi road. Whereas the Accused was coming from Mavingundi towards Honavar and his right side would be the left side of Mavingundi Honnavar road. But the Accused leaving 12 feet place on his side came to his wrong side and dashed to the right middle portion of the Maruti vehicle. A perusal of Ex.P.5 the MVI report reveals that, the front portion of Maruti Eco vehicle is not damaged. But the, rear door was dislocated and mangled, rear right side indicator and brake lights were broken, rubbing mark on right side body and it was pressed. This clearly goes to show that, the collusion between the two vehicles is not head on. On the other hand the Accused had dashed to the middle portion of the vehicle where deceased Sampathkumar was sitting and bore major impact of the accident and sustained head injury which lead to his death. The damages found on the Goods vehicle are hit mark in it its right side front portion only.
19. Further this Court is of the opinion that, Accused instead of going on left side of his road was driving in the middle of the road which is nothing but rash and negligent act on the part of the Accused endangering to human life. The Accused in order to avoid head on collusion might have steered to his left and was unable to avoid Maruti -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR car and dashed to its right side middle portion, as a result the accident has taken place.
20. Further this Court is of the opinion that, the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" i.e, things speak for themselves is aptly applicable to the case in hand. The spot of accident being situated at a distance of 7 feet form the left edge of Honnavar-Mavingundi road and there was a vacant space about 12 feet from the right side of Honnaver-Mavingundi road and damages caused to the Goods Lorry and Maruti Ecco car clearly goes to show that, the Accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner prior to the accident and dashed to the on coming Maruti car.
21. No doubt the learned Advocate for Accused vehemently argued contending that, prosecution has failed to examine the driver of Maruti Ecco vehicle. If the driver of the Maruti Ecco vehicle was examined the Accused would have been in a better position to bring out the truth. But such an opportunity was denied to him. But this Court is of the considered opinion that, the Accused was not prevented or precluded from summoning the driver of the Maruti Ecco car as his witness to bring out the true facts as alleged by him. But the Accused neither stated anything in his defence nor lead any defence evidence in support of his case at the time of recording his statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
22. The authority relied upon by the learned P.P., reported in (2013)3 SCC (Cri) 27, Havivadan Baburhai Patel V/S State of Gujarat is aptly applicable to the case -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR in hand. Though learned Advocate for Accused had vehemently argued on relying of contradictions in the deposition of PW.1. But as rightly argued by the learned P.P that, there is a considerable time gap between recording of chief-examination of PW.1 and cross- examination. The cross-examination of PW.1 was deferred on the prayer of the defence. Due to passage of time there would be loss of memory of the witness and he may have deposed something in favour of the Accused in his cross-examination. But over all evidence i.e., chief- examination of cross-examination of PW.1 does not exculpate the Accused. The chief-examination of PW.1 had inculpated the Accused. This is supported by the judgment reported in (2013) 3 SCC (cri) 63 Akil @ Javed V/s State (NCT of Delhi). Nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.4 to 6 to disbelieve their evidence. 23. When that is so this Court is of the opinion that, the Prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the on 06.02.2013 at about 3-45 P.M., on Mavingundi-Honnavar raod near Hejani village the Accused drove his Mini Goods Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA- 47/2062 in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dahsed to the on coming Maruti Ecco car bearing Reg.No.KA-05/MM-62 to its right middle side, and caused simple and grievous injuries to the inmates and one of the inmate of the Car by name Sampathkumar died on way to the hospital and thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR
24. Further this Court is of the opinion that a perusal of the impugned judgment of the the Trial Court reveals that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence lead by the prosecution in proper perspective. The Trial Court had considered the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and properly convicted the Accused. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court for convicting the Accused are proper. For the reasons discussed as above, the judgment of the Trial Court can not be termed as perverse, capricious and unsustainable under law."
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner/accused is before this Court in the Revision Petition on following grounds:
• "That the both Courts failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W-1 who stated in the evidence that the one Goods Lorry coming from Mavinagundi and proceeding towards Honnavar on C D Bridge and further stated that when the Car proceeding behind the KSRTC Bus, the driver of the Car to overtake KSRTC Bus suddenly has taken Car towards right side and hit to the Lorry and it is negligence of the car driver and who is solely responsible for the accident and the Courts below without considering this admitted evidence passed impugned judgment and conviction which are not sustainable in law.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR • That the alleged sketch produced by the Respondent not exactly depicting spot because as per admitted evidence the Car driver to overtake KSRTC Bus which proceeding in front of the Car where U shape curve and thereby hit to the lorry by Car driver and therefore, it is the rash and negligent act of the Car driver and this part of the evidence is excluded from consideration and passed impugned judgment.
• That the Courts below without proper application of mind erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle solely on the spot sketch which is prepared at the instance of P.W-1 whose evidence is untrustworthy and therefore, the findings recorded based on such evidence are not sound and proper.
• That the admitted by P.W-1 and 7 the Road proceeding from Mavinagundi towards Honnaver is steep upgrading and if that is the case the goods lorry which is heavy vehicle cannot be in rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry and this has not been looked into by Courts below and in view of that the judgment and orders impugned are not sustainable in law.
• That the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged spot Panchanma prepared at the instance of P.W-1 because, P.W-3 one of the Panch to spot mahazar of Anatapura which is 50 km from Hejni and this shows that everything done at the instance of P.W-1 and no
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR independent investigation conducted by the I.O and the non examination of the Driver of the car itself is fatal to the case of the prosecution considering the manner of the incident.
• It is submitted that P.W-4 an 5 who stated to be the Inmates of the car in their evidence have admitted that the road from Mavinagundi towards Honnavar is upgrading and there are steep curves and further stated that the lorry hit the Car from back side of the Car which shows that the prosecution theory of the Goods lorry coming from opposite side in rash and negligent and caused accident is totally false and therefore, the points raised by the Appellate Court and the answer recorded thereon not based on materials on record and in view of that the findings of Courts below are perverse, arbitrary and not based on sound principles of law.
• That the Courts below failed to consider that the evidence of P.W-1 who deposed that immediately after the accident the injured were taken to Siddapur Government Hospital in the ECCO Car and as per Doctor advice they have been taken to Nanjappa Hospital Shimoga and then P.W-1 alleged to lodge the complaint to Siddapur Police but and the 1.0 in his evidence stated that when he went to spot in the next along with two Pancha from Siddapur but the said panch are of Antapur village in Sagar taluk and no explanation given why those persons have been secured though they are
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR staying more than 65 to 70 k.m from alleged spot of accident and that itself clear that there is no investigation as alleged by the prosecution.
• That the Courts below failed to appreciate that P.W-1 in his evidence has deposed that he has given complainant had not seen the accident and also admitted that the Car Drive to overtake the KSRTC Bus taken Car towards right side and during that process the back right side of the Car hit to hit to the Lorry and therefore, It is the Driver of the Car responsible for the accident and liable to be prosecuted and instead the case has been registered against the heavy vehicle with created story and the factual matrix come from mouth of P.W-4 and
5. The courts below without proper application of mind came to the wrong conclusion and convicted the petitioner.
• That when the prosecution miserable failed to establish the place of accident and in view of that the courts below could not have convicted the petitioner. • It is submitted that the prosecution prepared the sketch, spot mahazar as per its convenience and the witnesses have not been supported and therefore there is serious contradictions and Improvements in the evidence which has not been considered by the courts below and thereby material injustice caused to the petitioner.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR • That on looking the evidence of P.W-2 and 5 read together it is clear that to suit the case of the claim petitions everything has been managed and charge sheet has been submitted and there is no proper investigation and thereby serious injustice caused to the petitioner."
12. Sri Lingesh V. Kattemane, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record.
13. He would invite the attention of this Court to the fact that PW-1 has turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution. So also, alleged eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 and 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus sought for allowing the revision.
14. Alternatively, he would contend that the incident is of the year 2013 and accused being a family person, having a family to maintain, sought for enhancing the fine amount by setting aside the imprisonment and sought for allowing the revision in part.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR
15. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader would support the impugned judgment.
16. He would further contend that accused did not lodge the complaint about the incident nor helped the injured persons to shift to the hospital. On the contrary, he ran away from the spot after the accident and there is no explanation offered by the accused about the incident at least at the time of recording the accused's statement which fortifies the case of the prosecution that he is guilty of the offences alleged against him and sought for dismissal of the revision position.
17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material available on record meticulously.
18. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution successfully established all ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC?
2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR
3. Whether the sentence is excessive?
4. What order?
Regarding Points No.1 and 2:
19. In the case on hand, one of the inmates of the car, Raghavendra Rao is the complainant. He deposed in line with the complaint and turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief itself that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident has occurred at about 03:45 p.m. on Mavingundi-Honnavar road nearby C.D.Bridge of Hejani Siddapur Taluk.
20. Because of the impact of the accident, one of the inmates namely Sampathkumar sustained heavy injuries and he died on the spot. Inquest mahazar and post-mortem report of Sampathkumar marked before the court fortifies the oral testimony of PW1.
21. No doubt, PW2 and PW3 have turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to them, they were not in a position to specifically say whether it is because of the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR negligence of the accused accident has occurred. However, the sketch map placed on record and the wound certificate would establish that the accident has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused especially when he was driving the vehicle that too near the bridge.
22. Further, there is no explanation placed on record by the accused at the time of recording the accused's statement.
23. In a matter of this nature, accused after the prosecution makes out its case, it is the accused who is required to place his explanation on record as to the incriminatory circumstances.
24. In this regard, this Court gainfully places the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284. 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
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR 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. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decision to the facts of this case, it was necessary for the accused to offer his explanation about the incident. Whereas in the case on hand, accused failed to offer any explanation and did not place his version of the incident on record.
26. Pertinently recording of the accused's statement is a mandatory duty which serves dual purpose. Firstly, it would afford an opportunity for the accused to understand the incriminatory circumstances that are available in the case of prosecution which were put to him, if the accused is required to furnish necessary explanation. Secondly, it would offer an opportunity for the accused to place his version about the incident on record. If the accused deliberately fails to utilise these opportunities, the consequences in law will have to follow.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR
27. In the case on hand, when the prosecution has established by oral and documentary evidence on record especially the oral testimony of PW1, PW4 and PW5 and in the absence of any explanation, learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences.
28. Therefore, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that Point No.1 is to be answered in affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative. Regarding Point No.3:
29. In the case on hand, learned trial Judge has awarded the imprisonment of one year. The same was reduced to eight months by the First Appellate Court taking note of the mitigating circumstances that were placed on record.
30. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sourabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, this Court is of the considered opinion that the imprisonment need to be reduced to six months. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:678 CRL.RP No. 100220 of 2020 HC-KAR Regarding Point No.4:
31. In view of the finding of this Court on Points No.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed.
ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, the period of imprisonment is reduced from eight months as modified by the First Appellate Court to six months.
ii. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 31.01.2026. Failing which, the trial Court shall secure his presence in accordance with law and send him to prison for serving the sentence.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Kcm-from paragraphs 1 to 16 CLK-from paragraphs 17 till end CT:CMU / LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22