[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammad Sayyed S/O Azaruddin Sayyed vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                    -1-
                                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165
                                                           CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019


                      HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                          DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
                                             BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100055 OF 2019
                                    (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:
                      MOHAMMAD SAYYED S/O AZARUDDIN SAYYED
                      AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                      R/O: DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                                             ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      BY HALIYAL POLICE,
                      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
                                                                         ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)
                             THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
                      397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT
                      RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, BY
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                      SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,   SENTENCE DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. &
Dharwad Bench


                      SESSIONS    JUDGE,   U.K.   KARWAR,     SITTING   AT     SIRSI   IN
                      CRL.A.NO.5010/2015, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY
                      THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
                      CONVICTION DATED 16.11.2015 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT,
                      HALIYAL, AT HALIYAL IN C.C.NO.20/2013 THEREBY CONVICTING THE
                      PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 279, 337 & 304(A) OF IPC, IN
                      THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                   -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165
                                        CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2019


HC-KAR



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                             ORAL ORDER

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

1. Heard Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, and learned High

Court Government Pleader-Sri.Kiritilata R. Patil, for the parties.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered

an order of conviction in C.C.No.20/2013 and sentenced as

under:

-:ORDER:-

"Acting under section 255(2) of the Cr.P.C. the accused is

hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section

279 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of

Rs. 1000/-. Failures on the part of the accused pay the fine

he shall also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15

days.

Acting under section, 255(2) of the Cr.Р.С. the accused is

hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section

337. of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of

Rs. 500/-. Failures on the part of the accused pay the fine he

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

shall also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07

days.

Acting under section 255(2) of the Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of

Indian Penal Code and sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-. Failures on the

part of the 30 accused pay the fine he shall also undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 2 months.

All the sentences shall runs concurrently.

His bail bound and surety bond shall stand cancelled."

3. Accused filed an appeal challenging the order of

conviction and sentenced in Criminal Appeal No.5010/2015.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and

dismissed the appeal.

5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is

before this Court in this revision.

6. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on

06.06.2012 at about 10.00 p.m., involving the tanker bearing

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

number KA-22/B-3113 on Haliyal-Yellapur road near Bhagvati

Village Bridge, a complaint came to be lodged. In the road traffic

accident, several persons were sustained injuries and two

persons succumbed to those injuries.

7. Based on the complaint, the Haliyal Police registered

a case, investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against

the accused, who was the driver of the tanker and had also

sustained minor injuries in the incident.

8. After due trial, he was convicted and sentenced as

referred to supra.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an

appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5010 of

2015, which on contest came to be dismissed by judgment dated

21.12.2018.

10. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this

revision petition.

11. Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly

taken note of the material evidence on record and wrongly

convicted and sought for allowing the petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

12. Alternatively, he would contend that the petitioner

was prepared to pay reasonable compensation to the dependants

of the deceased and therefore, the sentence of one year imposed

for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code be

set-aside and sought for allowing the revision of petition to that

extent.

13. Per contra, Smt.Keertilatha R. Patil, learned High

Court Government Pleader, opposed the revision grounds. She

would further contend that because of the rash and negligent

driving of the accused, incident has occurred wherein two

valuable lives have been lost and several persons were injured,

which shows that accused was responsible for the accidental

death of two persons and therefore, no mercy can be shown and

sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

crystal clear that the vehicle involved in the accident was a

tanker lorry, which did not have permission to carry the gracious

passengers.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

16. Further, the cabin capacity was limited to the driver

and two persons. However, several persons were carried in the

cabin and therefore, negligence is per se attributable to the

accused.

17. No doubt, on the day of the incident, it was raining.

If it is so, it was all the more necessary for the revision petitioner

to take extra care and caution in driving the lorry in a proper

manner, especially when more number of persons has occupied

the cabin than the permissible limit and the accused being a

professional driver.

18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and on

account of the sudden encounter near the bridge, the accused

applied the brake. The incident occurred at 10.00 p.m., when the

tanker lorry toppled down and fell into a ditch. In the said

incident, several persons sustained injuries and two persons

succumbed to those injuries.

19. Considering these aspects, all the ingredients of the

prosecution is successful in establishing the incident in view of

the injured persons having supported the case of the

prosecution.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

20. Further, in a matter of this nature, the explanation or

version of the accused assumes importance in assessing the

degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

Such an opportunity is afforded to the accused by recording the

accused statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

21. Recording of the accused's statement under Section

313 of Code of Criminal Procedure serves dual purposes. Firstly,

it would afford the accused an opportunity to explain the

incriminating circumstances found against him.

22. Secondly, it would allow an opportunity for the

accused to place his version on record about the incident, as he

is part of the act.

23. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this

opportunity, consequences in law shall follow. In the present

case, the trial Magistrate has rightly drawn such consequences,

as the accused went to the extent of denying the very

occurrence of the accident itself.

24. The view of this Court in this regard is fortified by the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan1, wherein the relevant

paragraph reads 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."

25. Further, because of the negligent driving of the lorry

by the accused, two valuable lives were lost and several persons

sustained injuries. Therefore, awarding one year simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, in

the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper. In fact,

the sentence is on the lower side and in the absence of any

(2012) 9 SCC 284

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1165

HC-KAR

appeal by the State, there cannot be any enhancement of the

sentence.

26. This view of the Court is further fortified by the