Sri. M Mahesh vs State By Madiwala - Criminal Revision Petition

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court | Negatively Viewed by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 20, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri. M Mahesh vs State By Madiwala on 13 March, 2026

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15256
CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017

               HC-KAR

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                       BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.612 OF 2017
               BETWEEN:

                  SRI. M MAHESH
                  S/O LATE SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
                  R/A No.6, RUKKAMMA BUILDING,
                  7TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
                  SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
                  BANGALORE - 560 068.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
               AND:

                  STATE BY MADIWALA TRAFFIC POLICE,
                  MADIVALA, BENGALURU.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
               (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
               PLEADER)

Digitally signed
by R
MANJUNATHA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
KARNATAKA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.1197/2016
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED
21.09.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU
IN C.C.No.664/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.

                   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
               ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:15256
                                    CRL.RP No. 612 of 2017

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                      ORAL ORDER Heard Sri G.S. Venkat Subba Rao, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

1. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in

C.C.No.664/2015 and sentenced as under which was confirmed

in Criminal Appeal No.1197/2016 is the revision petitioner:

"Acting U/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused is
convicted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and
304(A) of IPC and 134(b) r/w 187, 119 r/w 177 of IMV Act.

The accused is sentenced for the offence U/s
279 of IPC, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

The accused is also sentenced for the offence
U/s 304 (A) of IPC, to undergo S.I. for a period of
one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five
Thousand only) and in default to pay the fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for further period of
one month.

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

The accused is sentenced for the offences
punishable U/s.134 (B) r/w 187 of IMV Act to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to pay the fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30
days.

The accused is also sentenced for the offence
U/s 119 of IMV Act, to undergo S.I. for a period of
one month and pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rs.One
Hundred only) and in default to pay the fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for further period of
two days.

The bail bond executed by the accused shall
stand cancelled."
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on

20.12.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of

Madiwala Police Station, accused being the driver of a private

bus bearing registration No.K.A.05/AD-1989, drove the same in

a rash and negligent manner near the Silk Board Junction by

jumping the traffic signal from Marathalli towards BTM layout,

dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration

No.K.A.05/HZ-0941, whereby rider of the motorcycle by name

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

G.S. Ajish, aged about 28 years fell down on the road and as a

result of the same, hind wheel of the bus ran over his head and

he succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3.2. However, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus

and went further and near the Rupena Agrahara Aspad Hospital

dashed to a car bearing registration No.K.A.05/MP-4361 which

was parked near the Aspad Hospital and damaged the said car

and without even informing the police fled away from the spot.

1. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge

sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134 (b) r/w [Section

187](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20578524/), 119 r/w Section 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Learned Trial Magistrate after securing the records,

recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial

was held.

1. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,

prosecution proceeded to examine eleven witnesses as P.W.1

to P.W.11 and relied on twelve documentary evidence which

were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

1. Detailed cross examination of the prosecution

witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve

the case of the prosecution or to prove the innocence of the

accused.

1. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence,

accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of

Code Criminal Procedure is recorded, wherein accused has

denied all the incriminatory circumstances including the

accidental death of Ajish and damage caused to the car bearing

registration No.KA-05/MP-4361 near Aspad Hospital.

1. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge considering the rival

contentions of the parties convicted the accused and sentenced

as referred to supra, inter alia, holding in paragraphs 28 to 34

as under:

"28. On going through the documentary evidence are
coupled with oral evidence of PW-1, 2, 3 5 and 6 to
11 it can safely be held that the accused was driving
of the aforesaid bus on the date of accident. It is also
not in dispute that the road in question where
accident took place in public road.

1. Further, it is not the defence of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the aforesaid has the Ex.P-9 IMV Report disclose that the

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

accident is not due to the mechanical defect of the
bus.

1. Now only question remains before the Court it whether this accident is due to rash or negligent driving of the accused or not. The fact that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of which the aforesaid bus ran over her is remained unchallenged. Whereas the accused has offered explanation that the deceased Ajish himself hit another vehicle not on the fault of the offending bus. The suggestion put to the PW- to 3, by the defence counsel which are extracted below for better appreciation. "CfñïUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁºÀ£À rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ SÁ¸ÀV §¹ì¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ DV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è"
2. It is well settled principles of law that once prosecution proved alleged facts then the onus shift on used to disprove the same and prove his defence. In the present case prosecution has proved by oral evidence and documentary evidence.

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in
   Joseph V/s State of Kerala case reported in AIR 2000
   (5) SC Page 19 that the accused inspite of explaining
   incriminating circumstances totally denies everything
   when those circumstances were brought to the notice
   by the Court. Such denial provides missing link
   unmistably and inevitably leads to the guilt of the
   accused.

2. The above principles are applicable to case on
   hand. In present case also accused not explained

                                            NC: 2026:KHC:15256
   

HC-KAR

       incriminating circumstances but denied everything.
       This has lead the guilt of accused.

1. Ex.P-11 is the Sketch and in which it is clearly
   shown that the accident was occurred on the middle
   of the road, and the accident was due to the bus
   driven by the accused hit the two wheeler and this is
   very much evidential from Ex.P-2 Panchanama and
   Ex.P-11 Rough sketch and also evidence of PW-1 to
   3 and 6 to 11. The evidence of Eye-witnesses and
   Pancha witness and evidence of Investigation Officer
   proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident
   was occurred due to the negligent driving of the
   accused. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is held
   that the prosecution has proved beyond all
   reasonable doubt the accused being driver of the
   above said bus drove it on public road in rash and
   negligent manner and caused death of deceased
   Ajish not amounting culpable homicide. Hence, point
   No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative."

2.  Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
   

appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.1197/2016.

1. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and

on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, in the

light of the appeal grounds, dismissed the appeal by considered

                                               NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

judgment dated 28.03.2017, inter alia holding in paragraphs 26

and 27 as under:

"26. I have carefully gone through the evidence of
PW1 to PW11, coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Upon
careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and PW3 to PW5,
which clearly disclose that very accident took place only
due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus by
the accused at the material point of time. In this
regard, trial court by appreciating the evidence of PW1,
PW3 to PW5 as well as Ex.P.2, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.11, has
rightly come to held that very accident took place only
due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus at
the material point of time. During the course of
argument learned counsel for accused would submit
that the very accident alleged to have took place at
about 10.30PM at Silk Board junction. However,
evidence of PW8 B.V.Venkatesh discloses that there will
no traffic signal at Silk Board junction from 10.30PM to
7.00AM. It is pertinent to note that the very case of
prosecution alleged to have took place at about
10.30PM. It is pertinent note that at Ex.P.1 time of
alleged incident mentioned as "at about 10.30PM".
Therefore, it is improper to come to the conclusion that
alleged incident took place exactly 10.30PM. Therefore,
it is be presumed that alleged incident took place
around 10.30PM. Hence, very contention of learned
counsel for accused is not at all helpful to the accused
to get over from the alleged incident. That apart,
learned Magistrate by appreciating the evidence of

                                                      NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

     prime witnesses like PW1 and PW3 to PW5, has rightly
     held that very incident took place only due to rash and
     negligent driving of offending bus by the accused. More
     so, evidence of PW5 clearly establishes that at the
     material point of time, offending bus was driven by the
     accused. Suffice it say, evidence of PW5 discloses that
     at the relevant point of time he was the cleaner in the
     said bus. It is also relevant to note that while
     examining the accused u/ [Sec.313](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/) of Cr.P.C, through
     out he disputes evidence of PW1 to PW5. In my view,
     when the prosecution has proved that the alleged
     incident took place at the alleged scene of offence and
     at the material point of time accused was the driver of
     offending bus, as per [Sec.106](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/697566/) of Evidence Act, certainly
     it is the accused has to explain how and under what
     circumstances alleged incident took place. However,
     accused      has   not   offered   any    explanation     in   his
     examination u/ [Sec.313](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/) of Cr.P.C.                 Therefore, non
     explanation by the accused during the course of
     examination u/ [Sec.313](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/) of Cr.P.C, which goes against
     him. Suffice it to say, in this regard, trial court at para
     32 has also relied the ratio laid down in AIR 2000 (5)
     SC 19- Joseph V/s state of Kerala. Ratio laid down in
     the very case law, is squarely applicable to the case on
     hand. Therefore, in view of principles laid down in the
     said case law, certainly mere denial of incriminating
     evidence by the accused, will not save him from the
     case.   In    my view,     certainly     trail   court   has   not
     committed any error in holding that very accident took
     place only due to rash and negligent driving of

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

     offending bus by the accused, resulting in, it has
     dashed into motorcycle driven by deceased and as a
     result he fell down and at that juncture rear wheel of
     offending bus, ran over the head of deceased and
     thereby he succumbed at the spot.

1. On going through the materials available on record, it clearly disclose that accused after causing the accident has not at all intimated the same to nearest police station. Suffice it to say, evidence on record also discloses that accused has clearly violated traffic rules, since at the material point of time of accident, though there was traffic red signal at scene of offence, accused drove the offending bus, resulting in accident took place. It is the case of prosecution that after causing the accident, the accused without intimating the said fact to the nearest police, has ran away from the scene of offence. Trial court by appreciating evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that accused without intimating the said fact to the nearest police, has committed an offence p/u/Sec.134-A r/w 187, 119 r/w 177 of I.M.V. Act and hence, trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused. In my view any stretch of imagination, findings of trail court cannot be set aside, since trial court by assigning sound reasons, has well appreciated the evidence on record while convicting and sentencing the accused and based on settle position of law, it has rightly come to the conclusion that accused has committed the offences alleged. Hence, I am of the considered view that at any stretch of imagination conclusion arrived at by the trial

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

      court in convicting and sentencing accused cannot be
      set aside. Hence, I concur with the findings of the trail
      court. Therefore, in the circumstances, Appeal is to be
      dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment. For
      the   foregoing   reasons,   I    answer   point   No.1   in
      Negative."

1. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before

this Court in this revision.

1. Sri G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision

petition would vehemently contend that both the Courts have

not properly appreciated the material evidence and the line of

defence taken by the accused by suggesting the defence theory

to the prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the

accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice and thus sought for

allowing the revision.

1. Alternatively, Sri Venkata Subba Rao would contend

that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction,

the sentence be set aside by enhancing the fine amount

reasonably and thus sought for allowing the revision.

1. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader would oppose the revision grounds

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

and contend that a valuable human life has been lost and the

accused ran away from the spot without stopping the bus and

again dashed against the car which shows the rash and

negligent driving of the bus by the accused and therefore,

conviction is just and proper and revision needs to be

dismissed.

1. Having heard the arguments of both sides this

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

1. On such perusal of the material on record there is

no dispute that the accused was the driver of the bus bearing

registration No.KA-05/AD-1989.

1. Further, the charge sheet filed against the accused

is not challenged by the accused in the light of the defence

taken on behalf of the accused that there were two more

vehicles involved in the incident.

1. If the accused is not responsible for the accidental

death of Ajish as is sought to be portrayed before this Court,

what prevented the accused himself to inform the police about

the incident that because of the intervening of two more

vehicles, Ajish has lost his life.

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

1. These factors coupled with the denial of all the

incriminatory materials at the time of recording the accused

statement would be sufficient enough to conclude that accused

is guilty of the offence alleged against him.

1. Recording of an accused statement in a criminal

trial is not an empty formality. It serves dual purpose. Firstly, it

would afford an opportunity for the accused to explain the

incriminatory circumstances found against him.

1. Secondly, it would afford a reasonable opportunity

in a matter of this nature to place his version about the

incident.

1. In the case on hand, since the accused has taken a

specific defence that he is not responsible for the accidental

death of Ajish and it is the two more vehicles which were

responsible, such a version should have been placed before the

Court by examining the accused by himself or at least placing

written submissions in this regard.

1. If an accused deliberately fails to make use of such

an opportunity, then the consequences in law has to follow.

1. No doubt it is the prosecution which is required to

prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

But once the prosecution places the necessary material on

record it is for the accused to explain those circumstances.

1. In the case on hand, since the accused has

deliberately failed to make use of the opportunity granted to

him, consequences have been recorded by the Trial Magistrate

and learned judge in the First Appellate Court.

1. 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

(2018) 9 SCC 284.

1. As such, conviction order recorded by Trial

Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no

interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction.

1. Having said thus, the accused being the driver of

the bus and incident has occurred at 10.30 p.m. there is scope

for possibility of the human error. Therefore, granting the one

year imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of Indian

Penal Code needs to be reduced to six months by following the

principles of law, enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs SAURABH BAKSHI, reported

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

in (2015) 5 SCC 182 wherein their Lordships in paragraph 14

and 15 have held as under:

1. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in [Balwinder Singh State of 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

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

     sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in
     that sphere would tempt them to make driving
     frivolous and a frolic.

---

1. 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

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

     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 lessening the high rate
     of   motor   accidents    due      to   callous    driving   of
     automobiles.' ([Dalbir Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62080/) case [[Dalbir Singh v.
     State of Haryana](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/611175/),(2000) 5 SCC 82:2004 SCC (Cri)
     1208],SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 & 13)"

1. 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

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

      State may consider, in case of men 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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/948911/) case [(1979) 4 SCC 719 :

1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21, para 5)"

1. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion

that period of imprisonment ordered by Trial Magistrate

confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the proved offence

under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code needs to be reduced

from one year to six months.

1. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the

accused for the offences under [Section

279](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1270101/), 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(b), 187, 119 and 177 of

Indian Motor Vehicles Act, sentence

ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate of

one year imprisonment for the offence

punishable under Section 304A of Indian

• 19 - NC: 2026:KHC:15256

HC-KAR

                     Penal Code is reduced to six months

                     simple imprisonment.

(iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.

(iv) Accused is directed to appear before the

                     Trial Court for serving the remaining part

                     of the sentence on or before 31.03.2026.

(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court

                     records with copy of this order forthwith

                     for issue of modified conviction warrant.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE

MR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47