[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Raghavendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2026

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                        -1-
                                                   NC: 2026:KHC:14450
                                               CRL.RP No. 727 of 2018


              HC-KAR




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                      BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.727 OF 2018
              BETWEEN:

                 RAGHAVENDRA
                 S/O RAMAKRISHNA
                 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                 OCC:DRIVER
                 R/O DODDA MATTIGA
                 DEMLAPURA,
                 THIRTHALLI TALUK-577 432
                 SHIMOGA DISTRICT
                                                         ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI CHETHAN.C FOR SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATES)
              AND:

                 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                 REPRESENTED BY C.P.I
                 THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
                 SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577432
                 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally        BENGALURU-560 001
signed by R
MANJUNATHA                                       ...RESPONDENT
Location:     (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
HIGH COURT    PLEADER)
OF
KARNATAKA          THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
              SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
              PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
              29.02.2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
              JMFC, AT THIRTHAHALLI IN C.C.NO.562/2013, AND THE
              JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.06.2018, PASSED BY THE
              III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA IN
              CRL.APPEAL No.34/2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM
              ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
                                      -2-
                                                     NC: 2026:KHC:14450
                                             CRL.RP No. 727 of 2018


 HC-KAR




    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 Chethan C, advocate for Sri B.S.Prasad, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa,

learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Revision petitioner/accused being the driver of a private

bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1832 who had parked the

bus in the private bus station at Theerthahalli bus stand,

moved the said bus without noticing the fact that the deceased

Vishwanath was enquiring about his lost umbrella with the

driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-20/A-3598,

consequent of which the bus driven by accused ran over

Vishwanath who lost his life, which fact was proved in C.C

No.562/2013 and convicted for the offence under punishable

under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code,

confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2016, is the revision

petitioner.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

Deceased Vishwanath had travelled in the bus bearing

registration No.KA-20/A-3598 on 29.06.2013. However he had

left his umbrella in the said bus. Therefore, on 30.06.2013 at

about 06.25 p.m. he went to Theerthahalli private bus stand

and spotted the bus bearing registration No.KA-20/A-3598 and

was enquiring with the driver of the said bus regarding the

umbrella that he had left in the bus on the previous day.

4. At that juncture, driver of the bus bearing registration

KA-14/A-1832, who had parked the bus in the platform, in a

negligent manner moved the bus purportedly when the

conductor of the bus removed the wooden piece which was

kept as a manual brake to the type of the bus, and dashed

against the deceased Vishwanath whereby he lost his life.

5. The police, after thorough investigation filed the charge

sheet against the accused being the driver of the bus bearing

registration No.KA-14/A 1832.

6. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial

Magistrate and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty,

therefore, trial was held.

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all nine

witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and ten

documentary evidence were placed on record which are marked

as Exs.P.1 to P.10.

8. Sri Prashod examined as PW-2 is the eyewitness to the

incident, who has deposed about the improper parking of the

bus and the bus running over the body of the deceased. Minor

contradictions elicited in the evidence of the prosecution

witness did not cause any serious dent to the case of the

prosecution.

9. The owner of the bus has specifically stated before the

Court that the accused was working as driver of the said bus

since one year. The Motor Vehicle Inspector did not notice any

mechanical defect in the bus.

10. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also

considering the fact that the accused has failed to offer any

explanation with regard to the incident, learned Trial Judge

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 279 and 304A IPC and imposed fine as well as six

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section

304A IPC.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal

before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.34/2016.

12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing

the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and

after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record,

rejected the appeal filed by the accused by considered

judgment dated 06.06.2018.

13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before

this Court in this revision.

14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the

grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that both

the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence

on record inasmuch as, the accident has not occurred when the

accused was driving the bus. Therefore, there cannot be any

conviction for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and

thus sought for allowing the revision petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

15. Alternatively, learned counsel would contend that in the

event this Court upholding the order of conviction,

enhancement of fine may be ordered and imprisonment may be

set aside.

16. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court

Government Pleader, would oppose the revision grounds and

contend that there is no necessity that the accused must be

driving the bus in question at the time of the accident.

17. There is negligence that is attributable to the accused in

improper parking of the bus resulting in the accident which

would be sufficient to attract the penal consequences as is

provided under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and thus sought for

dismissal of the revision petition.

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

perused the material on record meticulously.

19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is to be

noticed that the bus of which the accused is the driver was

parked in Theerthahalli private bus stand. The deceased who

had forgotten his umbrella in the bus previous day i.e., on

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

29.06.2013, had come to the bus stand and was enquiring with

the driver about the umbrella that he had left in the bus on the

previous day.

20. At that juncture, without noticing that there may be some

persons standing behind the bus, the conductor is said to have

removed the wooden piece kept near the bus tyre which was

used as a manual brake to prevent the bus from moving when

it is parked, and the bus dashed the deceased due to which he

fell down, sustained injuries and lost his life.

21. To substantiate that it is the mistake of the conductor

which resulted in the unfortunate accident, conductor of the

bus is not examined on behalf of the accused.

22. Further, there is no material evidence on record which

would establish that the accused had taken all necessary

precautions i.e., he had applied the hand brake while parking

the bus in the private bus station.

23. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the accused who

is a professional driver to take such necessary precautions upon

parking the bus, that too, in a bus stand.

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

24. Non taking of necessary precautions and allowing the bus

to be parked haphazardly itself would be sufficient enough to

attract the offence under Section 279 IPC.

25. The negligent act of the accused ultimately resulted in

moving of the bus on the body of the deceased resulting in

severe injuries and the injured succumbing to the injuries.

Therefore, offence under Section 304A IPC gets attracted.

26. Having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this

Court cannot take a different view especially in the absence of

any explanation offered by the accused in his statement

recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

in annulling the finding recorded by both the Courts that the

accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279

and 304A IPC.

27. In a matter of this nature, accused is expected to place

his version about the incident at the time of recording the

accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the

Code of Civil Procedure which is not an empty formality in a

criminal trial. It serves dual purpose.

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

28. Firstly, it would afford an opportunity for the accused to

explain the incriminatory materials found in the case of the

prosecution.

29. Secondly, the accused is also afforded an opportunity of

placing his version about the incident.

30. In a given case, if the accused deliberately fails to make

use of such an opportunity, consequences in law should follow.

31. In the case on hand, accused has denied all incriminatory

circumstances including the accidental death of the deceased.

32. Therefore, consequences has been recorded by the

learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate

Court.

33. 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 vs State of Rajasthan reported in

(2012)9 SCC 460.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

34. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned

Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no

interference in this revision.

35. Having said so, the alternate argument that is put forth

on behalf of the accused is to be now considered.

36. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that

since the accident has occurred without there being any

intention, the sentence of imprisonment needs to be set aside.

37. Such an argument cannot be countenanced in law

inasmuch as, for attracting the offence under Section 279 and

304A IPC, the intention of the accused is immaterial. It is only

the negligent act that is attributable to the accused. If the

negligence act of the accused has resulted in loss of a human

life, offence under Section 304A of IPC gets completed even

when the accused had no intention to take away the life of a

human being.

38. Therefore, sentence of six months' imprisonment awarded

by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate

Court needs no interference, that too, in the revisional

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14450

HC-KAR

jurisdiction, having regard to the principles of law enunciated

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs.

Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182.

39. Thus, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby

dismissed.

(ii) Revision Petitioner/accused is granted time till

31st March 2026 to surrender before the Trial Court

to undergo remaining part of the sentence.