Karnataka High Court

Sri M Kannan vs State By Sakaleshapura P S on 11 April, 2023

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                           -1-
                                                  CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 416 OF 2019


                 BETWEEN:

                 SRI M.KANNAN,
                 S/O MARADAMUTTHU,
                 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                 R/AT KUDUGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
                 SAKALESHAPURA TALUK,
                 HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. SENTHIL KUMAR D.V., ADVOCATE FOR
                     SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE)

                 AND:

                 STATE BY SAKALESHAPURA P.S,
                 HASSAN DISTRICT.
                 REPRESENTED BY SPP,
                 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally
signed by        BANGALORE-560 001.
GAYATHRI P G
Location: High
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka
                 (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

                       THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
                 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
                 COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
                 24.11.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                 J.M.F.C., SAKALESHPURA IN C.C.NO.130/2015 AND SET ASIDE
                 THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2019 PASSED BY THE V
                 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN
                 CRL.A.NO.314/2018 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR
                 THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304-A
                 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
                              -2-
                                     CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019




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

                          ORDER

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w

401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the sole accused challenging the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshapura in

C.C.No.130/2015 dated 24.11.2018 and the judgment and

order passed in Crl.A.No.314/2018 dated 25.02.2019 by

the Court of 5th Addl. District and Sessions Court at

Hassan.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition

narrated briefly are:

On 03.12.2014 at about 7.10 p.m. when the

deceased Eraiah was walking on the left end side of

Sakaleshapura-Arehally road near the railway bridge, a

tractor bearing registration No.KA.46.T.1709-1710 which

CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019

was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the

petitioner dashed against Eraiah and as a result he had

suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by his son

Devaraju (PW.1), a case was registered against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279

and 304(A) of IPC. The police after completion of the

investigation had filed charge sheet against the petitioner

for the aforesaid offences. Since, the petitioner had

claimed to be tried in the said proceedings, the

prosecution to prove its case had examined seven

witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked seven documents

as Exs.P1 to P7.

5. The trial Court thereafter heard the arguments

on both sides and by its judgment and order dated

24.11.2018 convicted the petitioner for the offences for

which he was charged and sentenced the petitioner to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months

and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo

CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019

simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the

offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and for

the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the

petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one month. The said judgment and order of conviction

passed by the trial Court was upheld in Crl.A.No.314/2018

by the Court of 5th Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Hassan dated 25.02.2019. It is in these factual

background, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

during the pendency of this revision petition, the dispute

between the parties has been amicably settled. He

submits that PW.1, the defacto-complainant in the present

case and his family members have come forward to settle

the dispute with the petitioner and have agreed to receive

a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner towards

compensation. He submits that having regard to the

aforesaid settlement arrived between the parties, they

CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019

have filed a joint memo accompanied by affidavits of the

petitioner as well as PW.1-Devaraju and they have also

filed a separate application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.

seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences

for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced

by the Courts below.

7. The application filed under Section 320(2) of

Cr.P.C. as well as the joint memo filed by the parties

reporting settlement is taken on record. The offences for

which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by

the Courts below are non-compoundable offences and

therefore, on the basis of settlement between the parties,

the petitioner cannot be acquitted. Taking into

consideration the nature of offences and the sentence

imposed on the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE

OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 1 SCC 184

has held that Courts can consider reducing the sentence

CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019

imposed on the accused having regard to the settlement

arrived between the parties.

8. In the case of MANISH JALAN VS. STATE OF

KARNATAK reported in (2008) 8 SCC 225, wherein, the

accused was convicted for the offences punishable under

Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, having regard to the

settlement arrived between the parties and considering

the affidavit filed by the mother of the victim in the said

case, wherein, she had agreed to receive an additional

compensation from the petitioner and had volunteered to

compound the offences against him, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed as follows:

"16.True that in the instant case the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter

CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019

and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment.

17. Having regard to all these facts and bearing in mind the fact that the mother of the victim has no grievance against the appellant and has prayed for some compensation, we are of the view that a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone but in addition thereto, the appellant should be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased by way of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, indicated that his was willing to pay that much amount. We order accordingly."

9. It is not the case of the prosecution that the

petitioner in the present case was driving the offending

vehicle under the influence of liquor or any other

substance impairing his driving skills. Accident is of the

year 2014. The parties have filed a joint memo as well as

an application seeking permission of this Court to

CRL.RP No. 416 of 2019

compound the offences for which the petitioner has been

convicted and sentenced by the Courts below and in the

joint memo filed by the parties it has been stated that the

matter has been settled between the parties amicably and

towards settlement arrived between the parties,