Karnataka High Court
Dyaniyal vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858
CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200050 OF 2023
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DYANIYAL S/O MALKU ARMY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. CHITAGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585412
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY,
CHITAGUPPA POLICE,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA CHITAGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585412
(RETD. BY ASPP, HC KAR KLB-585103).
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HUMANABAD, IN C.C. NO. 309/2019, DATED 02.02.2022, AND
FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIDAR, SITTING AT
BASAVAKALAYAN, IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5006/2022, DATED
07.01.2023.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858
CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Anita M Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.309/2019 dated 02.02.2022 on the file the of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad, and sentenced as under:
"In exercise of power conferred under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act.
Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo R/I for three months and sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable u/S 279 of IPC. In default to pay fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo R/I for one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable u/S 304A of IPC. In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of three months.
Accused is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable u/S 187 of M.V.Act. In default to pay fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The above sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently"
3. Being aggrieved by the Order of conviction and sentence, accused preferred an appeal on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at Basavakalyan in Crl.A.No. 5006/2022.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and allowed the appeal in part and modified the sentence as under:
"The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C is hereby partly allowed.
The judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.309/2019 dated 02.02.2022 is hereby set- aside.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR Appellant/accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(a) of IPC. in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
It is hereby confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court for the offenses punishable under section 187, 210 of IMV Act, and section 279 of IPC and section 357(1) of Cr.P.C."
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court.
6. Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, would contend that there are serious lacunae in the case of the prosecution which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge and not considered by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
7. Buttressing his contentions, he would invite the attention of the Court to the spot panchanama and the oral testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 and contended that contents of the spot panchanama would depict that the incident has occurred right in front of the office of the Circle Inspector of Police. But the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR spot panchanama has been drawn on the next day and by then, the offending auto rickshaw and two wheeler had already been shifted from the place of the accident and was parked in the precinct of the police station.
8. He further contended that these are the serious aspects of the matter especially while assessing the rashness and negligence on the part of the revision petitioner, high handed activity of the police in shifting the auto rickshaw from the place on the accident to the precinct of the police station without conducting the spot panchanama has seriously prejudiced the rights of the petitioner and sought to allow the revision petition.
9. He also contended that to assess the rash and negligence on the part of the revision petitioner while driving the offending auto rickshaw, learned Trial Judge has ignored the material evidence placed on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition.
10. Lastly, Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya would contend that the learned Trial Judge has committed grave error in not properly recording the statement of the accused inasmuch as -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR instead of naming the charge sheet witnesses, their number as per charge sheet has been mentioned in the questions that were framed by the learned Trial Judge resulting in serious prejudice to understand the case of the prosecution, whereby, accused could not furnish proper explanation and therefore, the impugned Order of conviction and sentence needs to be set- aside.
11. Per contra, Smt.Anita Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment.
12. She would contend that the alleged lapses or lacunae in conducting the trial before the Trial Court was not questioned before the First Appellate Court by raising necessary grounds in the appeal memorandum.
13. She would further contend that lapses or lacunae pointed out by the revision petitioner would not ipso facto cause serious dent to the over all case of the prosecution inasmuch as those lapses are only to be termed as irregularity and not illegality and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
14. She also contended that conduct of the accused assumes importance soon after the incident. Revision Petitioner being the driver of the auto rickshaw did not care to shift the injured to the hospital, but ran away from the spot. Therefore, revision petitioner cannot plead any mitigating circumstances before this Court.
15. She also contended that the First Appellate Court has modified the sentence by reducing the imprisonment by six months and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
16. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record, as could be seen from the charge sheet material, the case of the prosecution would reveal that in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 31.01.2019 involving an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-39/9778 and a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-39/L-8082 on Chitaguppa-Belakera main road in front of the office of the Circle Inspector of Police, a complaint came to be lodged with Chitaguppa police station. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
18. Based on the complaint averments, initially offence under Section 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act was registered.
19. Thereafter, taking note of death of the injured in the hospital on the next day, offence under Section 304A of the Indian penal Code came to be invoked with the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
20. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the revision petitioner was the driver of the auto rickshaw. The deceased was riding the motor cycle. After the accident, the injured rider of the motor cycle was shifted to the hospital and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Admittedly, the revision petitioner did not take any steps to shift the injured to the hospital.
21. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner herein. Admittedly, charge sheet was not challenged by the revision petitioner, if the police have committed any error in investigating the matter properly. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
22. Thereafter, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea.
23. The Trial Court Records depict that the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
24. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and placed on record ten documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1-10.
25. No doubt, in the cross-examination of P.W.2 who is one of the witnesses to spot mahazar, it is elicited that the auto rickshaw and the motor cycle were shifted from the place of the incident and were parked within the precincts of the police station.
26. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that the panchanama has been drawn next day of the accident. Further, it is elicited that Office of the Circle Inspector of Police is around ½ km and there is a compound and a burial ground about 500 metres away.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
27. It is further elicited that there is a road hump in front of the Office of the Circle Inspector of Police. He denied that he has falsely deposed before the Court that he has not participated in the panchanama proceeding.
28. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the spot mahazar is examined as P.W.3. In his cross-examination the deficiencies or lacunae ought to have been elicited which are pointed out by the learned counsel for revision petitioner. But surprisingly not even a suggestion is put to P.W.3 with regard to the shifting of auto rickshaw or motor cycle from the spot before the spot mahazar was conducted.
29. Having regard to the death being caused on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and taking note of the fact that there is no challenge to the charge sheet, in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any patent factual error or error of jurisdiction in recording an order of conviction as is held in the case of Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander reported in (2012)9 SCC 460.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
30. Two Courts have consistently appreciated the material evidence placed on record and thereafter, recorded an order of conviction.
31. While so recording an order of conviction it is noticed by the Trial Court that there is no explanation offered by the accused at the time of recording accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
32. In this regard, the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner assumes importance.
33. While it is mandatory duty of the learned Trial Judge to record the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is not purposeless. Recording of accused statement is an important stage of the Trial where the accused would be given an opportunity to explain the incriminatory circumstances and allows the accused to place his/her version with regard to the incident.
34. If the recording of the accused statement itself is improper or confusing or comprises of compound sentences, it
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR will be difficult for the accused to place his explanation to the incriminatory materials.
35. Catena of judicial pronouncements have time and again cautioned the Trial Court as to how accused statement is to be recorded. Usage of non-comprehendible words like C.W.1, C.W.6 or P.W.8 or complicated medical terms should be avoided while recording the accused statement.
36. Wherever it is permissible, if technical terms are spoken to by witnesses, it is the duty of the Court to translate them to ordinary language which is understandable by a common man and such incriminatory materials are to be put in the accused statement and seek necessary explanation.
37. Often, the accused statement is nothing but 'copy paste' of the examination-in-chief of a witness which serves no purpose nor it can be construed as proper compliance of the mandatory requirement of recording the accused statement.
38. Time and again judicial pronouncements have clearly ruled that such practice must be deprecated. Despite such
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR authoritative pronouncements, the improper framing of the questions in the accused statement is continued.
39. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to once again reiterate all these cardinal principles as to how accused statement is to be recorded.
40. It is needless to emphasize that it is the duty of the Judge to cull out the incriminatory materials from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and then put it across to the accused and seek explanation.
41. If the questions are non comprehendible or in the nature of 'copy paste' of the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses, such statements are to be considered as improper compliance and in a given case, it may also result in reversing the judgment, if it is held against the accused.
42. In the case on hand, no doubt, as is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that while recording the incriminatory circumstances from the deposition of P.W.3, the Trial Judge has used the words 'CWs' not only at one instance, but in couple of instances.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
43. However, taking note of the material on record in a cumulative manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that not putting across the testimony of P.W.3 who is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case and conducted the spot mahazar alone would not be sufficient enough to upset the find of conviction recorded by the Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Judge.
44. Unfortunately, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not bestow his attention to these aspects of the matter even in the absence of any grounds being raised on behalf of the appellant in the appeal memo, as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was required to consider the case of the appellant both on law and on facts.
45. This Court being the Court of revision, having regard to the limited scope in re-visiting into the factual aspects, do not find that the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner would affect the case of the revision petitioner such seriously so as to upset the finding of the conviction.
46. In view of the foregoing discussion, conviction of the revision petitioner needs to be maintained.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
47. Having held thus, it is noticed that the learned Trial Judge has awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, apart from imposing the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively.
48. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, Trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence.
49. In Indian jurisprudence, there is no proper sentencing policy. On bare reading of Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the framers of the legislation did not envisage imposing of rigorous imprisonment for those offences.
50. It is also noticeable that in both offences there was no compulsory punishment of imprisonment at all.
51. However, taking note of the galloping trend of deaths of human being in road traffic accidents, after surveying the case law on the issue, Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182 has held as under:
"14. xxx xxx xxx
12. Xxx xxx xxx xxx
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
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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 v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC
82)"
52. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there should be at least minimum imprisonment of six months where the human life has been lost on account of negligent act of an accused punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
53. In the statute when there is no rigorous imprisonment prescribed, learned Trial Judge imposing rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, needs reconsideration.
54. However, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court modified the sentence and reduced the imprisonment for the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code from one year to six months, and did not modify the imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
55. It is also noticed from the Order of the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court that even though there is no sentence of imprisonment or fine for the offence punishable under Section 210 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act, as there was no charge at all and conviction for the offence, the operative portion of the Order of the learned First Appellate Judge incorporates the sentence is confirmed for the offence punishable under Section 210 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act and for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 351 of the Indian Penal Code.
56. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court got confused while modifying the sentence as to the scope and ambit of Section 210 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act wherein learned Trial Judge has only directed the office to supply order of conviction to the Road Traffic Officials to take necessary action.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR So also, Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates about payment of compensation amount.
57. Therefore, operative portion of the judgment of the First Appellate Court is not properly worded and it does not convey proper meaning.
58. Be that what it may. Since there is only one death and the injured lost his life on the next day of the accident in the hospital, offence under Section 279 merges with offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
59. Therefore, since only one person is injured who lost his life, when there is sentence that has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence of imprisonment is per se permissible for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of doctrine of merger.
60. Further, since the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is considered as not a heinous offence, but where a human life is lost, legislators in their wisdom thought that two years is the maximum punishment. Since the First
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR Appellate Judge using his discretion has reduced the imprisonment from one year to six months, it should have been simple imprisonment and not rigorous imprisonment.
61. Likewise, whenever the Court is required to impose rigorous imprisonment, there must be proper reasons assigned as to why Court is of the opinion that rigorous imprisonment must be awarded.
62. No such reasoning is forthcoming in the Order on sentence before the Trial Court nor any special reasons are assigned by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while modifying the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months.
63. Since State has not preferred any revision regarding inadequacy of the sentence when the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months, this Court in the revision filed by the accused cannot modify the sentence further by enhancing the same, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Ramji Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR reported in (1990)4 SCC 718 and Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 834.
64. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court modified by the First Appellate Court is further modified by directing the revision petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) Rest of the sentence with regard to the fine in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act stands unaltered.
(iv) So also, the order of compensation awarded by the Trial Court stands unaltered.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3858 CRL.RP No. 200050 of 2023 HC-KAR
(v) Time is granted for the Revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining portion of the sentence, till 10th August 2025.
(vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with copy of this Order for issuing the modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT:PK