Karnataka High Court
Sri T K Jagannath Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:21349
CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 547 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI T K JAGANNATH SHETTY
S/O LATE KALAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
R/O TELUGARA BEEDHI
VIRAJPET TOWN,
VIRAJPETPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH SR. ADVOCATE
FOR SRI MOHAMMED ASHHAR C K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by STATE OF KARNATAKA
R MANJUNATHA BY VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE
Location: HIGH STATION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VIRAJPET - 571218
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2018 IN
CRL.A.NO.42/2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT
VIRAJPET AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:21349
CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018
HC-KAR
02.06.2014 IN C.C.NO.1029/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT VIRAJPET AND THE REVISION
PETITIONER MAY BE ORDERED TO BE ACQUITTED IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.1029/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:
"By virtue of powers vested U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted of the offence P/U/S 279, 304(A) of IPC.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and shall also pay a fine of Rs: 1,000/- for the offence P/U/S 279 of IPC.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence P/U/S 304(A) of IPC.
In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.
M.O.1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Lorry bearing Reg.No.MYC-90 and Autorikshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-12-A-778, which are released to the interim custody of the applicants is made absolute."
3. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.42/2014 on the appeal filed by the Accused.
4. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 27.02.2018, dismissed the appeal of the accused inter alia holding in paragraphs 29 to 32 as under:
"29. PW-17 Rangaswamy Assistant Engineer of PWD who prepared sketch of scene of offence. The sketch issued by PW-17 is marked at Ex.P-14. In Ex.P- 14 the width of the road, place of the crime of the accident and width of the foot path are all mentioned.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR In Ex.P-14 it is mentioned that the width of the asphalted surface is 4.80 meters, width of mud portion of left side of Ammathi-Virajpet road is mentioned in the place of accident as 0.8 meters. The width of the right side foot path of Ammathi to Virajpet mentioned in the place of accident is 1.10 meters. The distance of place of crime of occurrence from the right side edge of the road is 1.10 meters. That means the lorry which proceeding from Ammathi side to Virajpet side gone to the extreme right side of the road. On perusal of the document Ex.P-12 photo it shows that the lorry came to the extreme right side of the road and there is no space to the Auto Rickshaw on the asphalted surface to proceed further. Hence on perusal of the document Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 photos, Ex.P-14 sketch of the scene of offence clearly reveals that the lorry went extreme right side of the road and dashed against the Auto Rickshaw. Since the accused has taken contention that this accident was occurred because of axle cut and detach of the front wheel, it has to be seen whether the accused has proved said offence. There is no dispute that the front wheel of the lorry was detached and axle rod of the front wheel was cut. PW-13 IMV Inspector who is the best person to say about the mechanical defects has clearly deposed that the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. PW-13 has issued IMV report as per Ex.P-9. In Ex.P-9 itself PW- 13 IMV Inspector has mentioned that the front wheel axle cut and wheel came out only due to impact of the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR accident. During the course of cross-examination of PW-13 nothing is elicited from his mouth to suggest that only after cut axle wheel detached from the lorry the wheel hit to the Auto Rickshaw. If at all only wheel of the lorry after detachment was hit to the Auto Rickshaw there was no possibility to fell the wheel behind the lorry. It is the accused who has to explain whether the wheel detached after the accident or prior to the accident. But the accused is very silent in his 313 statement. PW-13 IMV Inspector clearly mentioned in Ex.P-9 is that due to Impact the wheel axle was cut and wheel came out. He has mentioned the damages found in the Auto Rickshaw also. The front glass of the Auto Rickshaw was damaged, front portion of the Auto Rickshaw was damaged, front mud guard was damaged, front light was damaged and roof top head of the Auto Rickshaw was damaged. On perusal of the document Ex.P-9 IMV Report and Ex.P- 10 and Ex.P-11 photos it clearly shows that the front portion of the Auto Rickshaw and right side portion of the Auto Rickshaw was damaged. If at all only wheel after detached from the lorry hit to the Auto Rickshaw there was no chance to cause such damages to the Auto Rickshaw. On perusal of Ex.P-13 photo it shows there is specific mark on the wheel which clearly shows that the wheel portion hit to the Auto Rickshaw that may be the reason due to that impact the wheel axle may cut and wheel come out. It is pertinent to note that PW-1, PW-3 in their cross-examination on 27-7-2010 they have clearly deposed to the effect -6- NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR that no such accident was occurred due to detachment of the wheel of the lorry. The trial court records shows that PW-1 and PW-3 were recalled on the application filed by the learned counsel for the accused and they were cross-examined on 25-7-2012. On that day to these two witnesses similar questions were put asking that immediately after the accident they lost consciousness. They answered positively. A question asked to them that this accident was occurred due to detachment of the front wheel of the lorry, they answered it as positively. If we read the entire evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 it would goes to show that at initial stage they have denied the contention of the accused is that the wheel of the lorry was detached. But only when they recalled and further cross- examined then they have deposed that since the wheel of the lorry was came out the accident was occurred. The further cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3 is not believable because if at all accident was occurred only due to detachment of the wheel of the lorry they have would have stated the same in their examination-in-chief itself or in the cross-examination dated 27-7-2010. Their further cross-examination is very quite contrary to their earlier cross-examination portion. Even though PW-1 and PW-3 in their further cross-examination stated that due to detachment of the wheel of the lorry the accident was occurred. But the oral evidence of PW-4 is very consistent. PW-4 has clearly stated that the accident was occurred as the driver of the lorry came in high speed and dashed -7- NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR against the Auto Rickshaw. In the cross-examination of PW-4 nothing is elicited from her mouth to show that this accident was occurred due to the wheel of the lorry was detached. There is no dispute regarding detachment of the front right side wheel of the lorry. The burden is upon the accused to show due to detachment of the front wheel of the lorry he lost control over the lorry and lorry went to right side of the road.
30. PW-1, PW-3 to PW-5 have clearly stated that the accused was driving the lorry in high speed and because of the act of the accused the accident has taken place. When the injured witnesses have specifically stated and nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said offence, the same can be relied upon. When appellant/accused came to be examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C he has not explained his stand how the accident taken place. It is the accused who will be having greater opportunity to extend his stand about the manner which the accident has taken place. The accused in his 313 statement has not stated anything about how this accident was occurred. He has also not explained whether the front right side wheel was detached due to impact of the accident or prior to the accident. In his 313 statement he has admitted the question that he voluntarily surrendered before the police and obtained bail. He admitted the question that axle of the wheel was cut and the wheel come out. But he has not explained anything about the manner, in which the accident has taken place. When -8- NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR he has not made any case under such circumstances the evidence of eyewitnesses appears to be acceptable and trustworthy and it has to be taken into consideration. PW-13 IMV Inspector who is the best witness to say about the mechanical defect has clearly deposed that this accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. His report as per Ex.P-9 shows that the front right side wheel axle was cut and wheel came out only due to impact. Even if we perused the Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 photos it goes to show that the lorry went to the right side of the road. Ex.P-12 photo shows that there is a scratch mark of collision in wheel mud guard portion of the lorry which would indicates that the front right side portion of the lorry hit to the Auto Rickshaw."
31. In the decision reported in State of Rajasthan V/s Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 in Para No.23 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to -9- NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain."
32. In the present case the accused has not explained anything about whether the front right wheel of the lorry was damaged prior to accident or after the accident. The oral evidence of PW-1, PW-3 to PW-5 and PW-13 and documents Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 photos shows that due to the impact of accident the front right side wheel of the lorry was detached. PW- 11 Head Constable has received the intimation from the hospital as per Ex.P-7 and visited to the hospital and recorded first statement of PW-1 and on the basis of the same he registered the case. He has deposed
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR that on the following day I.e., on 6-4-2009 as the accused voluntarily surrendered before him at about 9 p.m he arrested the accused and released on bail. During the course of cross-examination of PW-11 nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version. The document Ex.P-7 shows that immediately after injured admitted to the hospital the doctor has sent MLC intimation to the concerned police. PW-12 Head Constable has deposed regarding receipt of further complaint as per Ex.P-2 and giving requisition to the court as per Ex.P-8. PW-15 PSI deposed regarding conducting of the inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P-4. PW-16 Circle Inspector has deposed regarding conducting of further investigation and Collecting the map from the Engineer and collecting the P.M.Report, wound certificate, IMV Report, photos of the place of Incident and after completion of Investigation filed the charge sheet. PW-14 Head Constable has deposed regarding conducting the spot Mahazar as per Ex.P-3 and seizure of the lorry and Auto Rickshaw. He has identified the photos which were taken in the place of the accident, the same were marked at Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-13. PW-1, PW-3 to PW-5 who are all proceeding in the Auto Rickshaw who are the best witnesses to say about the accident have clearly deposed that the accused who was driving the lorry driving the same in high speed and dashed against the auto rickshaw and caused this accident. It is come in the evidence of PW- 1, PW-3 to PW-5 is that the deceased Muthanni was sitting behind right side seat in the Auto Rickshaw. In
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR this accident Muthanni sustained injuries to his leg and spinal cord and neck. The very injuries sustained by Muthanni shows that the lorry dashed to the Auto Rickshaw to the front portion and right side portion, due to the impact the deceased sustained injuries."
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this court in this revision petition.
6. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
6.1. In respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 05.04.2009 at about 06.45 p.m., accused being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.MYC-90, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at Kommethodu main road, situated in Imangala village, resulting in dashing against a auto rickshaw bearing registration No.K.A.12/A-778 and whereby inmates of the auto rickshaw suffered injuries and also one of the inmates by name Muthanni lost his life.
7. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused and learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance, framed the charges and held the trial as accused pleaded not guilty.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR
8. Prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused as PWs.1 to 17 and placed on record 24 documents, besides marking fiber glass pieces of auto rickshaw as MO1.
9. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded the statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, calling out the incriminatory circumstances from the prosecution evidence and put it across to the accused, which was denied by him including the accident.
10. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and sentenced the accused as referred to supra.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.42/2014.
12. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 27.02.2018 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter accused is before this court.
13. Sri N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR contend that material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient to record an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, especially when the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and thus, sought for allowing the revision.
14. Further, Sri Kamath would emphasise that taking note of the fact that the vehicle is old lorry, the oral testimony of the witnesses is that, lorry was moved in a high speed, cannot be countenanced in law and therefore, sought for allowing the revision of petition.
15. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, enhancing the fine amount, sentence may be set aside.
16. Per contra, Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader support the impugned judgments.
17. Having heard the arguments of both side, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
18. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that accident involving the lorry bearing registration
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR No.MYC-90 and auto rickshaw bearing registration No.K.A.12/A-778 is not in dispute.
19. Admittedly, inmates of the auto rickshaw who are injured, are the eye witnesses to the incident, who have deposed categorically about the incident with graphic details.
20. Detailed cross examination in the form of suggestions that it is the driver of the auto rickshaw who is responsible for the accident did not yield any result in proving the fact that petitioner is not responsible for the accident.
21. Moreover, there was no challenge to the charge sheet filed by the Investigation Agency against the driver of the lorry.
22. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also considering non placing the version of the accused with regard to the incident, the conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21349 CRL.RP No. 547 of 2018 HC-KAR
23. Having said thus, this Court bestowed its best attention with regard to the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner.
24. No mitigating circumstances are placed on record to reduce the sentence of six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code.
25. State did not choose to challenge the order of acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
26. Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, hardly there is any scope for interference with the order of quantum of sentence.
27. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is dismissed.
(ii) Revision petitioner is directed to surrender before learned Trial Magistrate on or before 10.05.2026 to serve the sentence.
SD/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 71