Dismissed¶89

Naveen S/O. Manjunath Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025CRL.RP/100104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rash and negligent driving; causing death by negligence; Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC; tipper lorry versus motorcycle fatal accident, Sirsi-Kumta road, Bennehalla bridge; injured eyewitness testimony higher pedestal; Section 313 CrPC explanation and consequences of silence; deceased rider without driving licence; spot sketch; limited scope of revisional jurisdiction; refusal to reduce sentence; Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2023; Justice V. Srishananda; conviction upheld; revision dismissed; surrender deadline 15.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed. Time granted to the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 15.04.2025. ¶89

Naveen S/O. Manjunath Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed. Time granted to the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court till 15.04.2025.

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus call for interference. +2 more

¶58

Court's answer

Testimony of an injured eyewitness must be kept on a higher pedestal, as such a witness would not falsely implicate somebody else allowing the real culprit to escape; here PW-1 (eyewitness complainant) and PW-4 (injured pillion rider) are eyewitnesses.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

PW-1 and PW-4 withstood the searching cross-examination, and the material on record, especially the spot sketch, makes it clear that the revision petitioner (lorry driver) is responsible for the incident.

¶66

Key takeaways

The deceased rider's lack of a driving licence is not by itself sufficient to attribute negligence to the rider of the motorcycle, especially in the absence of any challenge to the charge sheet.ratio¶66
An accused is expected to place his version about the incident so as to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision; if he fails to offer any explanation, the consequences in law follow (applying Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, para 39, on Section 313 CrPC), the accused here having offered no explanation.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under S.397 r/w 401 CrPC by the driver of tipper lorry KA47/6722 against concurrent convictions under Ss.279, 338 and 304A IPC for a fatal road accident of 16.05.2015 near Bennehalla bridge on the Sirsi-Kumta road, in which motorcyclist Naveed Khan died and the pillion rider (PW-4) sustained grievous injuries. Held: (i) testimony of an injured eyewitness is kept on a higher pedestal; PW-1 (eyewitness complainant) and PW-4 (injured pillion rider) withstood cross-examination; (ii) the spot sketch fixed responsibility on the lorry driver, and the deceased rider's want of a driving licence did not, in the absence of challenge to the charge sheet, shift negligence to him; (iii) the accused offered no explanation in his Section 313 CrPC statement nor any written version under Section 313(4) or defence evidence, so consequences in law follow per Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284 (para 39); (iv) within the limited revisional scope (Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460), the concurrent findings required no interference; (v) the sentences — one month (S.279), two months (S.338) and six months (S.304A) running concurrently — being the minimum, no further reduction was permissible per State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182. Revision petition dismissed; time granted to surrender before the Trial Court till 15.04.2025.

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

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

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAVEEN S/O. MANJUNATH NAIK, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KHARVA, ASAROLLI, TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581361.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I. SIRSI RURAL POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶14

Digitally signed by V V NBADIGER N BADIGERDate:2025.03.21 10:34:38 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

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.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

Heard Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶24

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.

¶25

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶26

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

¶27

3.1 A road traffic accident occurred on 16.05.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., when a tipper lorry bearing No.KA47/6722 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

3.4 In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW6 and prosecution placed on record 17 documents which were exhibited and marked as Es.P-1 to P-17 comprising

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

of complaint, spot mahazar, photograph, spot sketch, postmortem report of the deceased, IMV report, inquest mahazar, FIR, photographs of the place of incident.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

placed on record, in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, dismissed the appeal of the accused.

¶40

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶41

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.

¶42

Therefore, no negligence can be attributed to

¶43

the revision petitioner which aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by both the Courts while passing the

¶44

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

¶45

order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶46

Alternatively, he would contend that accused is

¶47

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.

¶48

Per contra , Sri Sri Praveena Y.

¶49

Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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 .

¶54

Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶55

On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

from legal infirmity and perversity and thus call for interference?

¶59

2) Whether the sentence needs modification?

¶60

3) What order?

¶61

Regarding Points No.1 and 2

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

PW-1 and PW-4 have withstood the searching cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Further,

¶65

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

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

¶68

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

¶69

10 -

¶70

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

¶71

Rajasthan¹ wherein paragraph No.39 it has been held as under:

¶72

“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.”

¶73

In view of the above discussion and the

¶74

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

¶75

1 (2012) 9 SCC 284

¶76

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

¶77

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.

¶78

Regarding Point No.2:

¶79

Learned Trial Judge has granted only six months’ imprisonment for the offence under Sections 304A of IPC, one month imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and two months’ imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 of IPC which were ordered to run concurrently.

¶80

Taking note of the same, there is no scope for further reduction of the sentence in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi³ . Accordingly, point No.2 is also answered in the negative.

¶81