Chandrashekar vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1624 Kant

                                                   -1-

                                                            CRL.RP No. 280 of 2014



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                             DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                 BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                         CRL.R.P. No. 280 OF 2014
                   BETWEEN:
                   CHANDRASHEKAR
                   S/O LATE NAGARAJ
                   AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
                   R/O.661/1, 3RD CROSS
                   IST MAIN ROAD
                   SHIVANANDANAGA
                   HEGGANAHALLI
                   BANGALORE - 560 091.
Digitally signed                                                         ...PETITIONER
by B A
KRISHNA
KUMAR              (BY MRS. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADV., FOR
Location: High
Court of               SRI M. KEMPARAJU, ADV.)
Karnataka
                   AND:
                   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   MALLESWARAM TRAFFIC
                   POLICE STATION
                   BANGALORE CITY - 560 003.
                                                                        ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI MADHUSUDAN M., ADV., FOR
                       MRS. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)


                          THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                   SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:28.1.13 PASSED BY
                   THE MMTC-III, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.1226/11 AND THE ITS
                   CONFIRMATION BY THE ORDER DATED:17.3.14 PASSED BY THE
                   P.O., FTC-XV, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.101/13.

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

                                                 ORDER

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC is

filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction

CRL.RP No. 280 of 2014

28.01.2013 passed by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate,

Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.1226/2011 and the

judgment and order dated 17.03.2014 passed by the Fast Track

Court-V, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.101/2013.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned HCGP for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records

that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this

petition are, on 22.06.2011 at about 8.45 p.m. within the

jurisdiction of Malleshwaram Traffic Police Station, the

petitioner who was driving his motor cycle bearing registration

No.KA-02-EV-3084 in a rash and negligent manner dashed

against the Active Honda bearing registration No.KA-05-EN-

8800, in which deceased Srivatan was riding and caused the

accident. In the said accident, the deceased had sustained

grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body and

subsequently, succumbed to the said injuries. On the basis of

the complaint lodged by PW-2, Crime No.71/2011 was

registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 304-A IPC read with Section 134(b) & 187

of the Motor Vehicles Act. The police after completing the

CRL.RP No. 280 of 2014

investigation had filed charge sheet against the petitioner for

the aforesaid offences.

4. After service of summons in the said proceedings, the

petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to

be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case, had

examined eight witnesses as PWs-1 to 8 and got marked 10

documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10. The petitioner during the course

of his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, had denied the

incriminating circumstances that was available against him on

record. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence nor

any documents were marked in support of his defence. The

Trial Court, thereafter, heard the arguments on both sides and

by judgment and order dated 28.01.2013 had convicted the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and

sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under

Section 279 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment

for 30 days. For the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the Trial

Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The

appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and

order of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.101/2013 was

CRL.RP No. 280 of 2014

dismissed by the Appellate Court by its judgment and order

dated 17.03.2014. It is under these circumstances, the

petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she

does not seriously question the correctness of the judgment

and order of conviction and she submits that the son of the

deceased has come forward to receive compensation from the

petitioner and the petitioner and the son of the deceased have

filed a joint affidavit stating that the son of the deceased has

agreed to receive a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner as

compensation and in the joint affidavit it is prayed that the

petitioner may be acquitted for the alleged offences.

6. The offence under Section 304-A IPC is a non-

compoundable offence. The only question that may be

considered in this revision petition would be having regard to

the supervening circumstances brought on record, wherein the

son of the deceased has come forward to file an affidavit

stating that he is ready to accept the compensation amount

from the petitioner and he has no objection for acquitting the

petitioner, whether interference can be made in the quantum of

sentence awarded to the petitioner.

CRL.RP No. 280 of 2014

7. The aforesaid question was considered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of MANISH JALAN VS STATE OF

KARNATAKA - (2008)8 SCC 225, and it has been held that

leniency can be shown on the sentence that is imposed on the

accused in the event if the family members of the deceased

come forward to receive the compensation.

8. The accident in the present case is of the year 2011.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was driving the

offending scooter in a rash and negligent manner at the time of

accident and there is no allegation against the petitioner that

he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance

impairing his driving skills at the time of the accident.

9. In the background of the law laid down in Manish

Jalan's case supra and also taking into consideration the facts

and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that

it is a fit case for reducing the sentence imposed on the

petitioner by the courts below and the sentence of

imprisonment imposed on the petitioner shall be reduced till

the raising of the court and in addition to that, he shall be

directed to pay fine as ordered by the Trial Court. The son of

CRL.RP No. 280 of 2014

deceased Srivatan is present before the Court and has

acknowledged the receipt of the amount of Rs.70,000/- from

the petitioner as compensation. Under the circumstances, I

proceed to pass the following order:

10. The revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment

and order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting

the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC

is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is

reduced till the raising of the court. The imposition of fine by

the Trial Court is also maintained.

SD/-

JUDGE

KK