Karnataka High Court
Mr Sharath vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18210
CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.925 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MR SHARATH
S/O JANARDHANA POOJARY
AGED 30 YEARS
R/A HOUSE NO.1-16/1043
NEAR MALARAYA STHANA, CHILIMBI
URVA, MANGALURU - 575 008
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BAJPE POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA
MANGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed ...RESPONDENT
by R
MANJUNATHA (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
Location: PLEADER)
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
KARNATAKA SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE IN CRL.A.NO.25/2018, DATED
26.07.2018, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
D.K., MANGALORE, REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE
PETITIONER HEREIN, WHICH WAS FILED CHALLENGING THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC II COURT AT
MANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.789/2015, ON 27.02.2018, WHICH
WAS ENDED IN CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304A OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18210
CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code in C.C No.789/2015 dated 27.02.2018 on the file of the JMFC (II COURT), Mangaluru, C/C, and sentenced as under:
"Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused person is hereby convicted for the offences alleged against him punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
The accused person is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR The accused person is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC."
3. The order of conviction and sentence was subject matter of appeal filed by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.25/2018 which came to be dismissed on merits by a considered judgment dated 26.07.2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.
4. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.10.2014, at about 11.15 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Bajpe Police Station, involving a car bearing registration No.KA-
19/MC-3502, a complaint came to be lodged by contending that car was moving from Bajpe towards Kateelu in a rash and -4- NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR negligent manner and hit a pedestrian by name Anil Nazarath, due to which pedestrian fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.
6. PW-1/Sri Ignatius D'Souza having seen the accident, set the criminal law into motion, who is no way related to the deceased nor nurtured any enmity against the revision petitioner.
7. Police, after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
8. Learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of the accused after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine fifteen witnesses as PWs-1 to 15. Sixteen documentary evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-16. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR
10. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Magistrate culled out the incriminatory circumstances from the prosecution evidence and put it across to the accused and recorded the accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the accident and did not place his version about the incident.
12. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra.
13. Accused challenged the order of conviction and sentence before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25/2018.
14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by considered judgment dated 26.07.2018.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR
15. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision.
16. Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that according to the version of the prosecution, the deceased was a pedestrian and it is the rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in the accidental death of the pedestrian.
17. But, PW-1 has specifically stated that the victim-Anil Nazarath with another person was crossing the road and at that juncture, the car hit the said Anil Nazarath. Therefore, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries which is a major contradiction which has been ignored by the learned Trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. Thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
18. Alternatively, Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, sentence of imprisonment of one year for the offence under -7- NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR Section 304A IPC may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which can be paid as compensation to the dependants of deceased Anil Nazarath and thus sought for allowing the revision petition in part.
19. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing the revision grounds supports the impugned judgments.
20. He would further contend that PW-1 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity to falsely implicate the accused in the incident.
21. He would further contend that no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on behalf of the accused and minor contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
22. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, the concept of "blood money" is alien to the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence and therefore, submission of the revision petitioner that enhancing the fine amount reasonably the imprisonment need -8- NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR to be set aside cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
23. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material law on record meticulously.
24. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute about the road traffic accident occurred on 24.10.2014 near the Permude town involving the car bearing registration No.KA-19/MC-3502 which was driven by the accused.
25. In the accident, Anil Nazarath sustained injuries and because of the impact of the injuries, on the way to the hospital, he died.
26. Police, after registering the case in Crime No.270/2014 based on the complaint lodged by PW-1, who did not nurture any previous enmity as against the revision petitioner nor extra affinity towards the deceased, investigated the matter thoroughly and filed the charge sheet.
27. During the course of investigation, the offending car was seized and the spot mahazar has been drafted. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR
28. The contradiction that is highlighted in the cross- examination of PW-1 on behalf of the revision petitioner is that PW-1 has stated that along with Anil Nazareth, there was yet another person and police has not cited him as a witness and if the revision petitioner was negligent in driving, the other person should have also sustained injuries. Therefore, genesis of the crime as propounded by the prosecution is not properly proved and therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled for an order of acquittal cannot be countenanced in law for more than one reason.
29. Firstly, the accused failed to offer any explanation whatsoever to the incriminatory circumstances that has been found in the prosecution evidence. The contradiction that has been highlighted by the counsel for the revision petitioner is minor in nature which will fortify the fact that the PW-1 is a natural witness.
30. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that criminal law can be set into motion by any person. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 is natural and minor
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR contradiction in such evidence is to be ignored while appreciating the material evidence on record in a cumulative manner.
31. Secondly, revision petitioner/accused was required to place his version on record about the incident as he has taken part in the incident. But the accused in the case on hand, denied every one of the incriminatory circumstances including the accident.
32. If it is so, why his car was seized and why he did not challenge the charge sheet is a question that remains unanswered.
33. Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012)9 SCC 284, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused, noting the fact that prosecution is successful in proving the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of any plausible explanation by the accused nor placing his version about the incident.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR
34. Having said so, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, while re-appreciating the material evidence on record, did take into consideration the contradictions pointed out on behalf of the revision petitioner and has satisfactorily answered that the contradictions are minor in nature which did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution as a whole. This Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, did not find any grounds whatsoever to annul the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
35. Having said so, insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, what is the appropriate punishment for a vehicle driver resulting in the death of a human being is no longer res integra.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182 at paragraphs 14 and 15, has held as under:
"14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh [State of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR 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 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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR
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 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
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR 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
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR 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)""
37. Keeping in the background above legal principles, when the material on record is appreciated, accused did not come to the rescue of the injured in shifting him to the hospital though his car was the one which was the offending vehicle.
38. Further, in a matter of this nature the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied is the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2000)5 SCC 82.
which has been reiterated in the case of Saurabh Bakshi supra.
39. Therefore, minimum of six months imprisonment is to be ordered to curb the menace of road traffic accidents resulting in the death of a human being.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18210 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2018 HC-KAR
40. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate of one year confirmed by the First Appellate Court need to be reduced to six months.
41. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced to six months.
(iii) Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence on or before 30th April 2026.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71