Karnataka High Court
Abdul Rahim vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19142
CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1373 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ABDUL RAHIM
S/o. MOHAMMED N,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R @ OLABAILU,
D.NO. 5-86, NEERMARGA POST,
MANGALURU,
D.K.-575 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ISMAIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TRAFFIC EAST PS,
MANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally HIGH COURT BUILDING,
signed by R BANGALORE - 560 001
MANJUNATHA
Location:
...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2016 IN
CRL.A.NO.91/2015 PASSED BY PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALORE
PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2015 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19142
CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016
HC-KAR
C.C.No.1056/2013 ON THE FILE OF JMFC(III) COURT,
MANGALORE, D.K., PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-B.
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 Ismail, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.1056/2013, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.91/2015 is the revision petitioner.
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 occurred on 15.09.2012, Traffic East Police Station, Kadri, Mangaluru registered a case in Crime No.136/2012, wherein the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.K.A.01/EH-4669 lost his -3- NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR life on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing registration No.K.A.20/6265.
3.2. The accident occurred near St. Agnes Circle in Kadri-Shubhag Junction, near MESCOM sub-station. Scooter was driven by Smt. Asha Lavina Shera from St.Agnes Circle towards Shivabhag Junction.
3.3. On account of the impact of the accident, she fell down and sustained injuries. She was shifted to Father Muller Hospital. But, despite best treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 05.15 p.m. 3.4. Police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
4. Learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, summoned the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to -4- NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR 8 and placed on record fifteen documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P15.
6. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the very incident where Asha Lavina Shera sustained injuries while shifting to the hospital.
7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 16.02.2015 convicted the accused and sentenced as under:
"Exercising the power U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/S. 279, 304(A) of I.P.C. and U/S 3(1) R/W 181 of I.M.V. Act Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/s 279 of I.P.C.
Further, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, he -5- NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of I.P.C.
Further, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 days and fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day for the offence punishable U/s 3(1) R/W 181 of IMV Act.
Exercising the power U/S 428 of Cr.P.C., above said all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Free copy of judgment shall be furnished to the Accused."
8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A. No.91.2015.
9. 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, allowed the appeal in part and maintained the order of conviction, but modified the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code to Rs.1,000/- while maintaining the rest of the sentence. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR
10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds:
The decision of the lower Court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the law, facts of the case and weight of evidence.
The lower court has failed to formulate proper points for determination and has come to the erroneous conclusion.
The Lower Court has failed to consider that PW-1, the complainant was not an eye witness to the case. Further PW-1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has not seen the actual incident and whether the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. The complainant states that after the incident people had gathered and he saw the injured on the road and that he took the injured to the Hospital with the help of the accused.
The lower court failed to consider that all the seizure mahazar witnesses have turned hostile. Further the seizure mahazar submits that there was blood stains on the road. However the seizure mahazar does not disclose any blood stains. The Lower Court has erroneously held that all witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
The Lower Court has failed to consider that PW-2 & PW3, the alleged eye witnesses have not spoken about rash and negligent driving on behalf of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR Accused. In fact PW-3 in his cross examination has admitted that the vehicle was being driven in a slow and steady manner.
The Lower Appellate Court though admits that the reasoning of the trial Court is too short to arrive at the conclusion for conviction has erroneously upheld the conviction.
The Lower Appellate Court holds that as per PW-1, the police visited the incident spot at 8:15 am, the next day and drew Ex P2 mahazar for having seized helmet, tiffin box and uniform. However it has failed to consider that none of the seizure mahazar witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The lower court ought to have held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. The lower Appellate Court has failed to consider that the basic essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving has not been spoken by the witnesses. The contradictions and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, throws a strong doubt or suspicion on the case of the prosecution. The trial court ought to have considered the same in its right perspective and ought to have given benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Even on this ground, the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned order.
The lower court has failed to scrutinize and appropriate the evidence on record by adopting the standards adopted by the judicial forums. On the other hand, the lower court without considering the effect of cross-examination straight away proceeded -8- NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR to accept the evidence in examination in chief, without proper scrutiny.
The lower court has erred in relying upon the evidence of the witnesses who have not witnesses the incident and erroneously held that the PW has fully corroborated the evidence of PW2. The conviction passed only on the evidence of witnesses whose very present to witness the incident is seriously doubtful is not in the interest of justice. The Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. There is absolutely no legal evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused. The trial court ought to have considered the same and should have acquitted the accused of the alleged offences. Failure to do so has resulted in injustice to the accused person and it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the same.
The lower court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. It has failed to draw proper inference from the proved or admitted facts. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble court to urge additional grounds if any at the time of hearing of this appeal."
11. Sri Ismail, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that both the courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly -9- NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.
12. He invited the attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein he has specifically admitted that he did not see as to from which side the injured/deceased came from and he has not seen when the scooter was in locomotion, but he saw when the scooter fell down.
13. He also invited the attention of this Court that PW1 has specifically admitted that he has not seen how the accident has taken place.
14. According to him, PW1 is not an eyewitness to the incident and therefore, the conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Judge is incorrect.
15. He further pointed out that in the cross examination of PW2 and PW3 also several contradictions were elicited inasmuch as PW2 admitted that he is having an office in Kankanadi which is towards the pump well side and therefore he is not an eyewitness to the incident.
16. He also pointed out that PW3 according to the prosecution is a chance witness. As per PW3 he was a painter,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR working in a paint factory and his working hours were 9.30 a.m., to 6.00 p.m. Therefore, he could not have witnessed the incident as is enunciated by the prosecution and therefore, conviction of the accused is improper and sought for allowing the revision petition.
17. Alternatively, Sri Ismail, would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code needs to be set aside by enhancing the compensation amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition.
18. Per contra, Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds and supports the impugned judgments.
19. She would further contend that the minor contradictions elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution inasmuch as such contradictions could only reinforce the fact that they are natural contradictions and they are not tutored witnesses.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR
20. She also contended that during the cross examination on behalf of the accused, they have specifically stated that it is the rash and negligent of the driver of the mini bus, resulted in accident whereby the rider of the scooter fell down and she was shifted to hospital.
21. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Smt. Waheeda M.M. would contend that no mitigating circumstances are placed on record to reduce the punishment of six months for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code inasmuch as accused has gone to the extent of denying the very accident itself. Therefore, she sought for the dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
22. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
23. On such perusal of the material on record, the accidental death of Smt.Asha Lavina Shera is not in dispute in the road traffic accident that occurred on 15.09.2012 at about 04.30 p.m. near St. Agnes Circle in Kadri-Shubhag Junction, near MESCOM sub-station, Mangaluru is established by the prosecution by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR
24. PW1 is the person who set the criminal law into motion. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He is a true witness inasmuch as he has specifically answered in the cross-examination that he has not seen the scooter when it was in locomotion. But, he saw the scooter when it fell down and he saw the injured being shifted to the hospital and he has also helped in shifting the injured to the hospital.
25. Accused being the driver of the offending lorry is not in dispute. PW2 and PW3 have also supported the case of the prosecution. Minor contradictions elicited in the cross examination of PW2 that he could not have been present as his office is towards the pump well side cannot be countenanced in law that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
26. Likewise, PW3 being the employee in the paint factory, and having seen the incident is established and both the Courts have rightly appreciated that he is a chance witness.
27. Further, pertinently PW1 to PW3 did not nurture any enmity as against the petitioner herein or extra affinity towards the deceased or their family members so as to falsely implicate the revision petitioner in the accidental death of Smt. Asha Lavina Shera.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR
28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming on behalf of the accused, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference.
29. Pertinently in a matter of this nature, accused is bound to place his version on record about the incident at the time of recording the accused statement. If he deliberately fails to do so, consequences in law shall follow.
30. In the case on hand, accused has denied the accident itself. Therefore, the order of conviction is just and proper.
31. 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 v State of Rajasthan, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 284.
32. Having said thus, the learned Trial Magistrate has sentenced the accused has referred to supra whereas the learned judge in the First Appellate Court modified the sentence portion by reducing the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code.
33. In a matter of this nature, minimum six months imprisonment has to be granted following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs SAURABH BAKSHI, reported 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
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR 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
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR 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 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
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR 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.' (Rattan Singh case [(1979) 4 SCC 719 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21, para 5)"
34. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the above decision, in the absence of any mitigating circumstances placed on record by the accused, this Court does not find any good reasons to set aside the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code.
35. Accordingly, the following ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19142 CRL.RP No. 1373 of 2016 HC-KAR
(ii) Revision petitioner is granted time till 30th April, 2026 to surrender before learned Trial Magistrate to serve the sentence.
(iii) Office is directed to send the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 81