(Prayer: 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.)

Oral Order:

1. 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:

               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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

        iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with copy of this order forthwith.