Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Maheshappa Hadimani vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721
CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100244 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O. MAHESHAPPA HADIMANI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH CPI, RURAL CIRCLE, RANEBENNUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Location: SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR
High Court of THE RECORDS OF THE CASE FROM THE COURT BELOW INCLUDING
Karnataka, THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT PERTAINING TO C.C.NO. 101/2011 ON
Dharwad
Bench THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC
COURT RANEBENNUR AND FROM II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) PERTAINING
TO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32/2014, TO ASCERTAIN THE LEGALITY,
PROPRIETY AND CORRECTNESS OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND TO
ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
31.05.2014, PASSED IN C.C.NO.101/2011, BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & PRINCIPAL JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND
JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE II-
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.32/2014 AND TO ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM CHARGES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721
CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018
279, 337, 338 & 304-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/SEC 3 R/W
SEC. 181 OF M.V. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-
State.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') Section 3 read with Section 181, Section 134(a & b), read with Section 187 and Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act, confirmed in Crl.A.No.32/2014. Accused is sentenced as under by the trial Court:
"Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338, 304- A of IPC along with the offence U/s 3 R/w Sec.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 181 of M.V. Act and is accordingly convicted for the said offences.
However, U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is acquitted for the offence alleged U/sec. 134(a&b) R/w sec. 187 and Sec. 66(1) R/W sec. 192 of M.V. Act.
The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one year and shall also be liable to pay fine of 2,000/- for the offence punishable under sec. 304-A of the IPC and in default he shall further undergo S.I for two months.
The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of 700 for the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC in default he shall under go S.I for one month and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of 300/- for the offence punishable under sec. 337 of IPC and in default he shall under go S.I for a period of one month and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of 700/- for the offence U/s 338 of IPC and in default he shall under go a S.I for a period of six months. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of 500/- for the offence U/s 3 R/W sec. 181 of M.V.Act in default he shall under go S.I. for a period of one month."-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018
3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
In respect of the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.02.2011, Basavanneppa Gundagatti, lodged a complaint with Rural Police Station, Ranebennur. In the accident, number of persons suffered injuries and one of the inmates of the vehicle died. Offending vehicle is the TATA Ace vehicle bearing No.KA.27/A-5512 which is driven by the revision petitioner. The inmates of the vehicle are injured persons and on one such inmate is the complainant. The accident said to have occurred on 3.02.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., on Ranebennur-Halageri Road near graveyard on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle.
4. After due trial, accused has been convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. Interalia holding in para 15 to 17 which is culled out here under for ready reference:-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 "15 Even as per the IMV report as per Ex.P10 which has not been denied or disputed in this case, the accident was occurred not due to any such mechanical defect in the said vehicle. Under such circumstances a reasonable explanation is expected from the accused to prove before the court as to how the accident was occurred when admittedly there were no other vehicles on the road on the said date. Therefore merely because the technical terms like rash and negligence have not been elicited from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses, that itself will not automatically disprove the case of the prosecution when the facts and circumstances of the case and the other portion of the evidence of all these prosecution witnesses clearly go to show that it was the recklessness and unmindful act of the accused which has resulted in the occurrence of the accident by his driving. Furthermore when it has been the specific and positive plea or defence of the accused that the accused in order to avoid the collision by the bus which was coming behind him, has to take offending vehicle by the side of the road due to which the accident was occurred, then it is for him to substantiate this positive plea with cogent materials at least when he was given a last opportunity while -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 recording his statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case if we peruse his entire statement which has been recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C except bare denial regarding the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses against him, we absolutely find no other satisfactory answers or explanations from his mouth so as to disprove his guilt. The Hon'ble High Court has well settled the position of law on this point by observing that recording of statement U/s 313 of Cr.PC is not a mere formality and if the accused intends to disprove the prosecution case by putting forth his own defence then the burden is on him to substantiate this aspect. This position of law has been well-settled in a decision reported in Ishwar Sadeppa Nandennavar v/s State of Karnataka, represented by its State P.P, Bangalore in ILR 2004 KAR 1459 as under:
"(C)- Evidence Act-Sec. 106-Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge-
Examination of accused U/S 313-Held-- A person like a driver of an offending vehicle has been called out for having special knowledge of the occurrence and if he does not explain the same when he has been given a last opportunity while questioned U/S 313 Cr.PC after the prosecution has -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 discharged its burden prima facie the courts are entitled to draw adverse inference".
The failure of the accused to offer any explanation with regard to the cause of the accident as pleaded by him during the course of recording of his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC would certainly lead to draw an adverse inference against his defence and therefore, it can squarely be held that the accident in question and the resultant death of a person in the said accident was the out come of his own recklessness and rash and unmindful act. However the learned defence counsel has invited my attention that portion of evidence of PW1 to 3 who have not supported the prosecution case to the extent of identifying the accused and also the cause of the accident and it has been vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond any reasonable doubt. This line of arguments canvassed by the defence counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is the quality of the evidence which the prosecution places before the court which matters and not the quantity of the evidence, which is the equally well-settled preposition of law. Merely because some of the witnesses have declined -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 to support some part of the prosecution case that itself will not disprove or discredit the other portion of the prosecution witnesses which is otherwise found to be reliable.
16 Furthermore the conviction could be based even on the basis of the evidence of a single witness which is proved to be reliable and consistent with the prosecution case. In the present case it is not denied by the defence side that on the date of the accident P.Ws 6, 7 & 9 who have clearly supported the prosecution case were all traveling in the offending vehicle of the accused. If there cross-examination is perused nowhere any single suggestion is made to them disputing either their presence at the spot or their traveling in the said vehicle. Under such circumstances these material witnesses are to be considered as the probable witnesses who would have witnessed the said accident and therefore even though the other witnesses have turned hostile to some extent, but the testimony of PW6,7 & 9 is proved to be trustworthy of credence which is sufficient to attribute the guilt to the accused for the said offence. Even it is to be noted that these witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the cause of -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 the accident the rest of the portion of their testimony is clearly proved to be consistent with that of the testimony of P.W6, 7 & 9 as regards the involvement of the offending vehicle and the accused in the accident, the occurrence of the accident, the accident spot and their sustaining injuries in the said accident and the death of one passenger. These material aspects which have been spoken to even by these witnesses are to be taken into consideration so as to appreciate the entire evidence placed before the court by the prosecution. Therefore in my view the testimony of even P.Ws 1 to 4 cannot be totally discarded and that portion of their testimony which is consistent with the prosecution case, certainly requires consideration.
17 Thus what can be gathered from the conjoint reading of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is that though the complainant and other 2-3 witnesses have declined to say regarding the cause of the accident but nevertheless from the evidence of other witnesses like P.Ws 6,7 and 9, it is now clearly proved that the accident in question and the resultant loss of precious life of one person was the outcome of the rash and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 negligent act on the part of the accused because of his failure to take a reasonable and proper care while driving his vehicle on the public road were it is proved that there were no other vehicles moving along with his vehicle or there is no involvement of any other vehicles. Under such circumstances a duty is cast on the driver of the accused to observe such precautions not only while driving on the road, but such precaution is more needed even while driving the vehicle without there being the involvement of the any other vehicle in the accident Le. what has been well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex court in a decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 82 in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana has critically observed these aspects and at para 13 of its judgement as under:
"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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 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 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".
Had the accused in the present case for a while driven his vehicle slowly and in a careful manner on the road, the incident would not have happened which clearly indicates his gross criminal negligence which has led to this untoward incident. Therefore considering all these attending facts and circumstances of the case it can safely be held that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt for the offences U/sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPA and hence all these four points are answered in it favour in the affirmative."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018
5. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.32/2014.
6. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciating the material on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court.
7. Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused without appreciating the material evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.
8. Alternatively, Sri.A.M.Gundawade, counsel contended that in the event of this Court holding the order of conviction, since the accused has taken steps to shift the injured persons to the hospital, lenient view may be taken as he has also settled compensation to the injured persons in the motor vehicle accident claims and sought
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 for setting aside the imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the impugned orders.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the accused was the driver of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-5512 which met with road traffic accident on 03.02.2011 within the Ranebennur Police station limits on Halagere-Ranebennur road near grave yard.
12. According to the accused, in order to avoid collision of a vehicle which is coming from the hind side of the present vehicle, he has to steer the vehicle on to the right hand side of the road and lost the balance resulting in the accident. However, such a defence was not probablised by placing any material evidence on record.
13. Learned trial Magistrate has taken note of the trend of cross examination and also the other attendant
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 material facts and circumstances, has assigned valid reasons for recording an order of conviction as referred to supra in paragraph Nos.15 and 17 of impugned judgment.
14. It is also pertinent to note that learned judge in the First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the material on record has taken note of the powers of the appellate court in re-appreciating both factual and legal aspects of the matter and then confirmed the order of conviction.
15. This Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter to form a different opinion than the opinion formed by both the Courts which are based on factual aspects of the matter and on proper appreciation. It is pertinent to note that the accused failed to explain incriminating circumstances and failed to place his version about the incident. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. View of this Court in this regard is supported by the principles of law enunciated by
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan.1
16. Now coming to the question of quantum of sentence whether it is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case is concerned, it is the specific case of the present petitioner that he has settled the claims of Motor accident before the Tribunal as the vehicle had no insurance.
17. However that itself would not be sufficient enough to set aside the imprisonment period in toto.
18. It is urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that the accused had taken steps to shift the injured persons to hospital soon after the accident.
19. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, if the imprisonment of one year is reduced to six months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, ends of justice would be met following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi.2 1 (2012) 9 SCC 284 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018
20. Accordingly, following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') Section 3 read with Section 181, Section 134(a & b), read with Section 187 and Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act, imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified to six months from one year for the offence under Section 304A of IPC.
(iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
(iv) Time is granted to revision petitioner to surrender before the trial Court till 15.05.2025
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6721 CRL.RP No. 100244 of 2018 for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence.
(v) Office is directed to return the trial Court records along with the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC-Upto para 4 HMB-Para 5 to end CT- GTB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1