Karnataka High Court

Naveen S/O. Manjunath Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                    -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475
                                                          CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2023




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                                 BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100104 OF 2023
                                    (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                       BETWEEN:

                       NAVEEN S/O. MANJUNATH NAIK,
                       AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
                       R/O. KHARVA, ASAROLLI, TQ. HONNAVAR,
                       DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581361.
                                                                        ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY P.S.I. SIRSI RURAL POLICE STATION,
                       REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                       DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
         Digitally
         signed by V
                                                                      ...RESPONDENT
         N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
        2025.03.21
                       (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
         10:34:38
         +0530


                             THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397
                       R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
                       C.C.NO.480/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. J.M.F.C. AT SIRSI AND
                       RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5069/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
                       DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI
                       AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED BY I
                       ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT
                       SIRSI IN CRL.A NO. 5069/2022 AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
                       AND SENTENCE DATED 26.07.2022 PASSED BY II ADDL. J.M.F.C.
                       SIRSI IN C.C.NO. 480/2019, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED
                       FROM OFFENCE P/U/SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304A OF IPC.

                            THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, ORDER
                       WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475
                                        CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2023




                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for

revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction

for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and

304A of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of one month for the offence punishable under

Section 279 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of

two months for the offence punishable under Section 338

of IPC and six months imprisonment for the offence

punishable under Section 304A of ICP in addition to

payment of fine which got confirmed in

Crl.A.No.5069/2020, is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as

under:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

3.1 A road traffic accident occurred on 16.05.2015

at about 11.00 a.m., when a tipper lorry bearing No.KA-

47/6722 driven by the revision petitioner dashed against a

motorcycle bearing No.GA-04/D-8985 near Bennehalla

bridge on Sirsi-Kumta road. As a result, Naveed Khan

being the rider of the motorcycle died and pillion rider

sustained grievous injuries.

3.2 Incident was reported to the Rural Police, Sirsi,

who registered the case and investigated the matter in

detail and filed the charge sheet against the revision

petitioner.

3.3 Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the

offences alleged against the accused, summoned him and

recorded by the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and

therefore, trial was held.

3.4 In order to substantiate the case of the

prosecution, six witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-

6 and prosecution placed on record 17 documents which

were exhibited and marked as Es.P-1 to P-17 comprising

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

of complaint, spot mahazar, photograph, spot sketch,

postmortem report of the deceased, IMV report, inquest

mahazar, FIR, photographs of the place of incident.

3.5 On conclusion of recording of prosecution

evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused

denied all the incriminatory circumstances but failed to

place on record his version in writing as is contemplated

under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor any defence evidence

placed on record.

3.6 Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the

parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the

oral and documentary evidence placed on record,

convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and

sentenced as referred to supra.

2. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.5069/2022.

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the

records and on re-appreciation of the material evidence

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

placed on record, in the light of the arguments advanced

on behalf of the parties, dismissed the appeal of the

accused.

3. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court in this revision petition.

4. Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the

revision petition vehemently contended that both the

Courts have not properly taken into consideration the

negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle

inasmuch he was travelling from Goa to Sirsi without

driving licence. Therefore, he did not know how to ride the

motorcycle properly and in the curved road, he has dashed

against the lorry and lost his life. Accused being the driver

of Tipper was moving with utmost care and caution

especially in the curved road.

5. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed to

the revision petitioner which aspect of the matter has not

been taken note of by both the Courts while passing the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and

sought for allowing the revision petition.

6. Alternatively, he would contend that accused is

now aged about 32 years, having a family to maintain and

at this distance of time, if he is directed to go to jail, his

entire family would be put to hardship inasmuch as

accused is the only bread earner of the family and sought

for allowing the revision petition to that extent.

7. Per contra, Sri Sri Praveena Y.

Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent supports the impugned judgments.

8. He would contend that material placed on

record especially the charge sheet would go to show that it

is not the deceased who was responsible for the accident

but it is the revision petitioner who drove the lorry in a

rash and negligent manner resulting in loss of life of the

rider of the motorcycle besides the pillion rider being

sustaining grievous injuries, who is examined as PW-4,

who has narrated the incident with graphic details before

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

the Court as to what transpired on the fateful day.

Therefore, material evidence is sufficient enough to

sustain the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid

offences.

9. He would further contend that the material on

record has been rightly appreciated and minimum of six

months punishment has been granted by the learned Trial

Magistrate which got confirmed by the First Appellate

Court which requires no further indulgence from this Court

insofar as sentence is concerned. Thus, sought for

dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

10. Having heard the arguments of both the sides

in detail, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

11. On such perusal of the material on record,

following points would arise for consideration:

1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

from legal infirmity and perversity and thus call for interference?

2) Whether the sentence needs modification?

3) What order?

12. In the case on hand, admittedly there is no

complaint lodged by the accused-revision petitioner about

the incident. Complainant is examined as PW-1, who is an

eyewitness to the incident. PW-4 is the pillion rider, being

the eyewitness to the incident and he is also injured in the

very same incident.

13. It is settled principles of law and it requires no

emphasis that testimony of an injured-eyewitness must be

kept on higher pedestal as he would not falsely implicate

somebody else in the incident allowing the real culprit to

escape from the clutches of law.

14. PW-1 and PW-4 have withstood the searching

cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Further,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

material on record especially the spot sketch would make

it clear that it is the revision petitioner who is responsible

for the incident. Though the deceased did not possess the

driving licence, that itself would not sufficient to attribute

the negligence to the rider of the motorcycle especially in

the absence of challenge to the charge sheet.

15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and

also taking note of the fact that there is no explanation

whatsoever offered by the accused, learned Trial Judge

proceeded to convict the accused which has been rightly

re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate

Court.

16. In a matter of this nature, accused is also

expected to place his version about the incident so as to

allow the Court to arrive at a just decision. If he fails to

offer any explanation, then the consequences in law has to

follow as is held in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

Rajasthan1 wherein paragraph No.39 it has been held as

under:

"39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions 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."

17. In view of the above discussion and the

principles of law enunciated in the case of Ravi Kapur

supra, this Court having regard to the limited scope in the

revisional jurisdiction as is held in the case of Amit Kapoor

(2012) 9 SCC 284

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4475

vs. Ramesh Chander and another2, the conviction order

passed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First

Appellant Court needs no interference from this Court.

Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.

Regarding Point No.2: