Karnataka High Court
Bijaya Kumar Malik vs The State on 2 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18185
CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1208 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BIJAYA KUMAR MALIK
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O AKSHAYA KUMAR MALIK
R/AT C/O SUNIL SHETTY
KOLAMBE 76, BADAGABETTU VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576107
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R THE STATE
Location: REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HIGH COURT
OF BHRAHMAVARA POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560001
....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA MM, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18185
CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022
HC-KAR
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 30.08.2021 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI IN
C.C.NO.265/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304(A) OF
IPC. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI IN
CRL.A.NO.61/2021 U/S 374 (3) OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda.M.M, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. Revision petitioner having suffered an order of conviction in CC No.265/2017 on the file of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi vide judgment dated 30.08.2021 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, challenged the same before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.Appeal No.61/2021 which came to be dismissed vide judgment -3- NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR dated 01.09.2022, has filed the present revision petition to revise the orders passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present division petition are as under:
3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 06.11.2016 wherein a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20/D-4664 dashed against a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/L-
6916 on National Highway No.66 in front of 'Autolinks' building situated near Canara Bank, Brahmavara, Varamballi Village on Kundapura - Brahmavara road.
3.2. A passer-by car driver noticed the said accident and set the criminal law in motion by lodging the complaint with the jurisdictional Police. Police, after registering the case in Crime No.327/2016, investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet against the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
4. The presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. Accused being the offending bus driver, denied the charges levelled against him and therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine seven witnesses comprising of the complainant who was examined as PW1 and six more witnesses as PW2 to PW7. Twenty-two documentary evidence were also placed on record by the prosecution in support of its case comprising of complaint, photographs, spot and seizure mahazar, inquest mahazar, post mortem report, property seizure mahazar, sketch of the place of accident, notice issued under Section 133 of the IMV Act, reply to the notice, IMV report and acknowledgment.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR
6. Besides marking the documentary evidence, helmet pieces worn by the deceased was marked as MO1, which was seized under the spot measure.
7. On conclusion of recording of evidence of prosecution, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.PC, wherein the incriminatory materials were put across to the accused. Accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not choose to place his version about the incident on record.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused and sentenced as under:
"ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
The accused is hereby convicted and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under U/section 279 of IPC and in default of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR The accused is hereby convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 2 (two) years for the offence punishable U/section 304(A) of IPC and also he shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months."
9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.Appeal No.61/2021. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties, and upheld the order of conviction, but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment of two years awarded by the Trial Magistrate for the offence under Section 304A of IPC to simple imprisonment of one year.
10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
11. Sri. Dilraj, 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 on -7- NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice.
12. He would further contend, that PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident in view of the answer elicited in the cross-examination, which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts below and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.
13. Alternatively, Sri. Dilraj would contend that, in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, by enhancing the fine amount which can be paid as compensation to the dependents of the deceased, the order of sentence of simple imprisonment of one year awarded by the First Appellate Court by modifying the sentence of simple imprisonment of two years by the Trial Magistrate may be set aside.
14. Per contra, Smt. Waheeda, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the revision grounds by contending that, PW1 is an eye witness to the incident and -8- NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR in fact he is the one who set the criminal law into the motion. She would further contend that, material evidence placed on record and the answer elicited in the cross- examination of PW1 would make it clear that he is an eye witness to the incident as he was passing in the same road and he has witnessed the accident.
15. Further, Smt. Waeeda would emphasize that, in a matter of this nature, accused is expected to place his version on record as he has participated in the incident and if he fails to place his version on record, prosecution evidence has to be appreciated and consequences in law should follow and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
16. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Smt. Waheeda would contend that, a valuable human life has been lost for no fault of his and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly exercised his discretion in modifying the sentence of simple imprisonment from two years to one year, which needs no -9- NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR interference by this Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction, and sought for disposal of the revision petition in toto.
17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
18. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the road traffic accident occurred on 06.11.2016, wherein accused being the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20/D-4664 dashed against the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/L-6916, who was riding the motorcycle on the left side of the road, and because of the accidental injuries, he lost his life.
19. Accident has occurred at about 10.30 a.m. in a broad daylight. Therefore, there cannot be any scope for human error for want of vision, etc. Accused being a professional driver, was required to drive the bus in proper manner expecting the unexpected on the road.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR
20. The complainant is a person who was travelling in the same road in a car and he has witnessed 'Bharathi bus' dashing against the motorcycle in an attempt to overtake the lorry, which was moving on the same direction, from the left side.
21. On account of the want of sufficient margin, the driver of the bus has dashed against the rider of the motorcycle. Rider of the motorcycle was moving on the leftmost portion of the road as could be seen from the sketch and was wearing helmet as well. Thus, it is the negligent and rash driving of the bus driver which has resulted in the accident wherein rider of the motorcycle has lost his life.
22. Post mortem report and the inquest mahazar are sufficient enough to conclude that rider of the motorcycle lost his life on account of the accidental injuries.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR
23. Thus, prosecution is successful in establishing that because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20/D- 4664, rider of the motorcycle has lost his life.
24. Once the prosecution proves the negligent act of the accused, the incriminating circumstances are to be put to the accused while recording the accused's statement and seek his explanation. It is a mandatory duty on the part of the Trial Magistrate.
25. In the case on hand, learned Trial Magistrate culled out the incriminatory circumstances available in the prosecution evidence and put it across to the accused in number of questions. Accused has denied all those incriminatory circumstances including the accident.
26. Recording of accused's statement in a given case, especially in a matter of this nature, serves dual purpose.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR 26.1. Firstly, it would afford an opportunity for the accused to explain the incriminatory circumstances that are found against him in the prosecution evidence.
26.2. Secondly, it would afford a fair opportunity for the accused to place his version of the incident inasmuch as it is the accused who has taken part in the very same incident and he can be a best witness to explain as to what exactly that happened resulting in the road traffic accident. But if the accused deliberately fails to make use of such an opportunity granted to him while recording his statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.PC, consequences in law has to follow.
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 [(2012) 9 SCC 284]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out hereunder for ready reference:
"39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR 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 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."
28. Taking note of above legal principles, when the material on record in the case on hand is appreciated, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever furnished by the accused, the finding of the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too by this Court in this revision petition.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR
29. Having said thus, it is noticed that learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter, modified the sentence of two years' imprisonment to one year by exercising the discretionary appellate powers.
30. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner emphatically submitted that, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which can be paid as compensation to the dependents of deceased, the simple imprisonment of one year needs to be set aside.
31. Learned High Court Government Pleader would seriously oppose the same on the ground that, taking note of the galloping trend of the road traffic accident resulting in the loss of human life, the alternate submission needs to be rejected.
32. Having given anxious consideration to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court noted that no mitigating circumstances are placed on
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR record. In a matter of this nature, even though Section 304A of IPC contemplates a minimum punishment of imprisonment, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi [(2015) 5 SCC 182], this Court is of the opinion that minimum six months' imprisonment has to be granted to deter such crimes in general in the society. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision are culled out hereunder for ready reference:
"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)
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR "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 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
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR 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 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 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.'
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR (Rattan Singh case [(1979) 4 SCC 719 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21, para 5)" "
33. In the case on hand, no mitigating circumstances are placed on record by the accused to order only fine as against the imprisonment period modified by the First Appellate Court.
34. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, by exercising the revisional jurisdiction, if the order of the imprisonment of one year of the First Appellate Court is further modified into six months, ends of justice would be met in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case.
35. Thus, the following:
ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, sentence of simple imprisonment of two years modified by the First Appellate Court is further modified to six months for the proved offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18185 CRL.RP No. 1208 of 2022 HC-KAR ii. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court on or before 30.04.2026 for serving the sentence ordered accordingly.
iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43