Smt Kamala vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3485 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1079/2012

BETWEEN:

SMT.KAMALA
W/O. RAMESH
AGE: 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.F.003, ADARSHA PALACE
47TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK
BENGALURU-560 041.                        ... PETITIONER

         (BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
             SRI P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE, MANDYA
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.                       ... RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
02.01.2012 PASSED BY THE JMFC., MANDYA IN C.C.No.54/2008
AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O.,
F.T.C-1, MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO.1/2012 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC.
                                 2



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section

401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and set aside the

judgment and order of sentence dated 02.01.2012 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya in C.C.No.54/2008 and

the judgment dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer,

Fast Track Court-I, Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.1/2012 and

acquit the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 338 and 304A of IPC.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that this petitioner on 12.08.2007 at about 3:15 p.m., being the

driver of a Car bearing registration No.KA-05 ME 3392 drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human

life, near Hosabudanur Village Bus Stand on Bengaluru-Mysuru

road. At that time, the deceased as well as the other injured

persons were on their Bajaj Discover motorcycle on the left side

of the road talking to each other. The accused being a driver of

the aforesaid Car drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against them, as a result, one died on the spot

and another died on the way to the hospital and others have

sustained the grievous injuries. The police have investigated the

matter and filed the charge-sheet.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the case against

the petitioner examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to 8(a). The petitioner/accused has not led

any evidence and no documents are marked before the Trial

Court. The trial Judge after considering both oral and

documentary evidence convicted the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC and

ordered the petitioner to undergo sentence for a period of one

year with fine for each of the offences, the same was challenged

before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1/2012.

5. The First Appellate Court on appreciation of both oral

and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the

conviction, sentence and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved

by the said conviction and sentence and also confirmation, the

present revision petition is filed before the Court.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that the sentencing policy in an accident

case should be harmoniously blended with the cause of the

accident and the reason for the accident, in addition to the rash

or negligent act of the vehicle driver, in the instant case this

aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by both the Trial

Court as well as First Appellate Court. The learned senior

counsel would vehemently contend that this petitioner is a social

worker and not involved in any of the similar offences and also

the petitioner was proceeding on the left side of the road and the

accident was taken place on the left side of the road. The very

conclusion of the Trial Court is that the petitioner drove the

vehicle in a high speed and has gone beyond left side edge of

the road, is not based on any material; there is no any proximity

to cause of death as well as the act of this petitioner. Apart from

that, the learned senior counsel would also vehemently contend

that the sentence of one year is very harsh and not

commensurate with the gravity of the offences and it requires an

interference of this Court.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner in support of his arguments, he relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Jalan v.

State of Karnataka reported in (2008) 8 SCC 225. The

learned senior counsel referring to this judgment brought to the

notice of this Court that the factual aspects of the case as well as

the discussion made by the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.9, 12,

14, 15, 16 and 17 with regard to sentence and reduce the

sentence by awarding compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the mother

of the victim by way of compensation within three months.

When such being the case, the learned senior counsel also would

vehemently contend that when this petitioner is working as a

social worker and not indulged in any similar offences, this Court

has to take note of the principles laid down in the judgment

referred supra.

8. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice

of this Court an unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal

Revision Petition No.1047/2012 dated 03.10.2021 (Sri

Venkateshaiah v. State of Karnataka), wherein, this Court

taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Manish

Jalan's case (supra), awarded an amount of Rs.1 Lakh as fine,

in default of payment of deposit of fine amount, ordered to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that

both the Courts have given the finding regarding this petitioner

had committed the offences and particularly relying upon the

prosecution witnesses comes to the conclusion that the accident

was on account of this petitioner only. The First Appellate Court

also re-appreciated the material available on record and

confirmed the judgment.

10. The learned High Court Government Pleader in

support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi

reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, and brought to the notice of this

Court particularly, paragraph No.13, the Apex Court held that, it

cannot be said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused

offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim,

regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304-A IPC,

there can be reduction of sentence. The Apex Court also

discussed different judgments in paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16 and

17. Having discussed the principles laid down in the judgments

referred supra and also considering the material on record in

paragraph No.23, the Court comes to the conclusion that the

factum of rash and negligent driving has been established.

Further observed that the Apex Court has been constantly

noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also

noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and

negligent. It is also observed that it seems to us driving in a

drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with

youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules

or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. Having

observed this in paragraph No.24, the Apex Court held that

needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the

corrective measures but there are occasions when the

deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts

of the case. Having considered the material on record and

considering the mercy in applying the principle that payment of

compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It

is observed that, the sentence of one year as imposed by the

trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court

should be reduced to six months.

11. Having considered the grounds urged by the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and in

the case on hand, the material before the Court is that the

accident was taken place on 12.08.2007 almost 15 years back

and the material discloses that there were two deaths on

account of the accident i.e., one on the spot and another is

subsequent to the accident and other victims have also suffered

grievous injuries.

12. The principles laid down in the judgments referred to

by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-

State, no doubt, the judgment relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in Manish Jalan's case (supra),

almost after the 7 years of the said judgment, the Apex Court

judgment referred by the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State comes to the

conclusion that the rehabilitation or payment of compensation is

not the need of the hour and also further observed that there are

occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity

depending upon the facts of the case and set aside the order of

the High Court and sentenced the petitioner in the said case for

six months instead of one year.

13. I have already pointed out that in the case on hand

an accident was of the year 2007 and now we are in the year

2022. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the

accident was on account of rash and negligence driving on the

part of the petitioner herein. Having considered the principles

laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court and also

considering the death of two victims and also the other injured

persons, though, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

would vehemently argued that with regard to the sentence is

concerned, no doubt, the Apex Court in the judgments referred

supra by the learned learned High Court Government Pleader for

the State, reduced the sentence for a period of six months. No

doubt, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit

that this petitioner is a Social Worker and not having any

criminal antecedents and the Court has to take note of the

gravity of the offences and also the seriousness of the

allegations when two persons have lost their lives on account of

this accident and others have also sustained grievous injuries, I

am of the opinion that in view of the principles laid down in

Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra) referred by learned High Court

Government Pleader for the State, it is not a fit case to even to

reduce the sentence to six months as contended by the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner. Each facts and circumstances

of the case has to be looked into. The gravity of the offences

and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and

the same has been proved by the prosecution and also affirmed

by the First Appellate Court. No doubt, this Court in an

unreported judgment in Criminal Revision Petition

No.1047/2012 dated 03.10.2021, by referring the judgment

of Manish Jalan's case (supra) in the month of 03.09.2021,

awarded compensation. But the judgment of the Apex Court in

Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra) has not brought to the notice of

this Court while delivering the judgment by the co-ordinate

bench. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider the said

judgment also. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Revision

petition either to set aside or to modify the sentence considering

the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offences and

two persons have lost their life. Apart from that, others have

also sustained the grievous injuries on account of the negligence

act of the petitioner herein.

14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*