Karnataka High Court
S Santhosh vs State By Mudigere Police on 19 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
CRL.RP No. 600 of 2017
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 600 OF 2017
BETWEEN
S. SANTHOSH S/O LAKSHMANA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O MARKAL, NIDIVALE VILLAGE,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY MUDIGERE POLICE
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. DIVAKAR MADDUR M., HCGP)
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: HIGH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2016 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.4/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2014 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MUDIGERE IN
C.C.NO.307/2011 AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE
OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 16TH APRIL, 2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
CRL.RP No. 600 of 2017
ORDER
Appellant in Crl.A.No.4/2015 on the file of Principle
District and Sessions Court, Chikkamagaluru preferred this
appeal challenging the Judgment passed by the said Court
dated 14.09.2016 dismissing the appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution
are that on 19.04.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. the accused
being the driver of ambulance vehicle bearing registration
No.KA.18/A.2698 (for short 'Ambulance') drove the said
vehicle on Mudigere side, towards Mangaluru side in a rash
and negligent manner and at Bidarahalli village, in front of
the house of one Riyaz, due to rash and negligent driving
of Ambulance he dashed against the Alto car bearing
No.KA-30-M-3660. Due to the impact of the said accident,
the driver of the car by name Prakash sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot and
PWs-1 to 3 also had sustained simple as well as grievous
injuries.
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
3. PW-1 lodged the complaint to Mudigere police
Station that was registered in Crime No.26/2011 for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A)
of IPC. The matter was investigated by Circle Inspector of
Police, Mudigere Circle and submitted charge sheet against
the accused/petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 279, 338, 304(A) of IPC, before Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC Court, Mudigere (for shot 'trial Court')
which was registered in C.C.No.307/2011.
4. The trial Court secured the presence of the
accused and supplied copy of the charge sheet and
enclosures. It recorded the plea of the accused and
accused pleaded not guilty.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined
PWS.1 to 9 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P11 and
closed its evidence. The trial Court examined the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and accused did not lead
defense evidence when called upon.
6. The trial Court after hearing both the parties
and appreciating the evidence available on record by it's
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
Judgment dated 03.11.2014 convicted accused of the
offence punishable under Section 279, 338, 304(A) of IPC
and sentenced as under:
"The accused shall sentence to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 279 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine the accused shall under go
simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.
The accused shall sentence to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 338 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.
The accused shall sentence to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the
offence punishable u/s. 304(a) of IPC. In
default of payment of fine the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month."
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.4/2015 before the
Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkamagaluru. The appellate Court heard the arguments
of both the side and on re-appreciating the evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
available on record, dismissed the appeal by impugned
judgment dated 14.09.2016, confirming the judgment
passed by the trial Court. Same is challenged in the
present Revision.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned High Court Government
Pleader.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that in the cross-examination, the eye witness have
admitted that they did not see on coming ambulance prior
to the collusion of the vehicle. It indicates that they were
not the eyewitnesses to the incident. The accident had
taken place at the curve of the road. The driver of the car
had drove the vehicle at the middle of the road, without
taking care of the traffic. Moreover the driver of the car
had no knowledge of driving; because of his negligence,
the accident had taken place. These facts are not at all
considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court. Therefore, the findings of both the Courts are
contrary to the provision of law and erroneous. Therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
interference by this Court is required. The trial Court as
well as appellate Court have not properly appreciated the
evidence of other witnesses. The evidence of injured
witnesses creates lot of doubt in the case of the
prosecution. They were not considered by the trial Court.
Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.
10. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in any event if the Court finds that
accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the
ambulance, this Court may take lenient view while
imposing sentence. The alleged accident had taken place
during April, 2011. More then 13 years is lapsed. The
accused is married person having family responsibility, if
he is sentenced to imprisonment as ordered by the trial
Court, his entire family would suffer. It is not the intention
of the legislature that the accused should be sentenced to
jail. The Court can take reformative method while
imposing punishment. Instead of imprisonment, fine may
be imposed.
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
11. In support of his submission, he relied on the
judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
following cases:
In the case of Hassainar Vs. State of
Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.154/2016.
In the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
A.G. Lokanath in Crl.A.No.564/1999.
In the case of Maruthi Vs. State in
Crl.R.P.No.509/2015.
In the case of Paul George Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi, reported in (2008) 4 SCC
185.
12. He submits that in all of the above said cases,
the trial Court as well as appellate Court convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(A)
of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment was imposed. The
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the facts and
circumstances of each case, modified the sentence of
imprisonment and directed the accused to pay additional
fine in lieu of sentence of imprisonment. Same can be
applied to the facts of the present case. With these
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow
the revision petition.
13. Learned High Court Government Pleader
supports the impugned judgment passed by the Court
below and further submits that both the Courts below
have appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence on
record and held that prosecution had proved the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial
Court convicted the accused of the alleged offences and it
was confirmed by the appellate Court. There are no
reasons to interfere with the said findings. Due to
negligence driving of the accused, driver of the car
sustained injuries and died at the spot and three inmates'
sustained simple and grievous injuries. Since it is
considered as accident happened without any intention,
severe punishment is not prescribed under the law.
According to Section 304(A) of IPC, the Court can impose
imprisonment, which may extend up to period of two
years or fine or with both. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
catena of judgments held that if prosecution has proved
guilt of an accused who has committed an offence
punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, then the accused
shall be sentenced to imprisonment to reform him from
committing such crime. If the Courts impose nominal
punishment for such offences, then it would encourage
such offender to commit more of such offences.
Therefore, question of imposing only fine do not arise and
hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
14. The following question arises for determination:
i. Whether the appellate Judge is
justified in confirming conviction of appellant
for the alleged offences and whether the said
findings are arbitrary, perverse or illegal and
interference by this Court is required.
ii. Whether imposing of the fine in lieu
of sentence of imprisonment is justifiable?.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
15. I have perused the materials on records. PW-1
lodged complaint-Ex.P1 within two hours after the
accident. He was inmate of the car, which met with an
accident. In Ex.P1, he has stated that driver of the
ambulance came in high speed, rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the car, due to which along
with him other two inmates of the car sustained injuries
and driver of the car by name Prakash was dead. During
his evidence, he has reiterated the same. He was
thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel appearing for
the petitioner, but nothing was brought out to disbelieve
his evidence. The accused contended that driver of the car
had no knowledge of driving and he came on the middle of
the road, because of his negligence accident had taken
place. The said suggestions were not only denied by PW1,
but he replied that "the car was on the extreme left side of
the road, but the ambulance came to right side (wrong
side) of the road and dashed against the car."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
16. PW-1 has stated that accident had taken place
after crossing of the curve, on straight road. It was
suggested to him that while crossing the curve road
vehicle coming from opposite direction could not be seen
and he admitted the same. On the basis of the said
answer, the counsel for the petitioner is contending that
PW-1 admitted that he could not see the on coming
ambulance, prior to accident, which clearly shows that
driver of car was responsible for the accident. He did not
see the on coming ambulance and dashed against it. The
said argument is not tenable. According to his evidence,
accident had taken place after crossing of the curve. He
answered a general question asked in the cross-
examination. Normally in steep curve, a vehicle coming
from other end of curve cannot be seen, till either of
vehicle cross the curve. It was not the suggestion that
present accident had taken place near or at the curve.
Hence said answer given by him was not this case. It is
trite law that evidence has to be read as whole and not in
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
piece. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is not acceptable.
17. PWs-2 and 3 are inmates of the car. Both of
them have also corroborated the evidence of PW-1. In
their cross-examination also nothing was brought out to
disbelieve their evidence. Suggestions were made to both
PWs-2 and 3 that deceased Prakash had no knowledge of
driving the car and due to his negligence, the accident had
taken place. Both PWs-2 and 3 denied the said
suggestions. The said defence appears to be not probable.
It is not case of prosecution that deceased had no driving
knowledge. He was said to be traveling from
Chikkamagaluru to Mangaluru and he had crossed halfway
through journey. Hence said suggestion is not probable.
18. PW2 in her cross-examination had stated that
she saw the ambulance about 20-22 feet prior to the
accident. She had also stated that the road was wide at
the spot of the accident. The car was at the extreme left
side of the road and a wide road was at right side to pass
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
through to the ambulance. In spite of that, ambulance
came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against
the car. Evidence of PW2 clarified that accident was due to
sole negligence of driver of ambulance.
19. PW3 was minor at the time of accident aged
about 12 years. In his cross-examination, he has stated
that he could not see the vehicle coming from the opposite
direction since front side seat was coming in the way of
viewing vehicles coming from the opposite direction. His
evidence will not damage the case of prosecution.
20. PWs-4 and 5 are also eye witnesses to the
incident. They also fully supported the case of the
prosecution in the examination-in-chief as well as in the
cross-examination. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve
their evidence in the cross-examination.
21. PW-7 - Motor vehicle inspector, who has
inspected both the vehicles and gave report as per Ex.P-9.
According to his evidence, accident had not taken place
due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. He was
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
not cross-examined in this regard. It was also not the
defence of petitioner that accident had taken place due to
mechanical defects of the ambulance.
22. PWs-8 and 9 are Investigating Officer. Both of
them have narrated the investigation done by them.
Ex.P2 and P11, depicts that place of accident was towards
the Northern side of the road. Towards south from spot of
accident, there was 14 feet wide road. The ambulance
went to wrong side of the road and dashed against the
car. It also indicates that driver of the ambulance was
negligent in driving the said vehicle.
23. The trial Court has considered all the materials
available on record and rightly held that accident was due
to rash and negligent driving of ambulance by its driver. It
is not in serious dispute that PW2 and 3 had sustained
grievous injuries and one Prakash driver of car was dead
at the spot. The Wound Certificate and postmortem
report corroborates the said fact. The learned appellate
Judge re-appreciated material available on record and
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
concurred with findings of the trial Court. It is well
reasoned findings and not calls for interference by this
Court in the Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C.
24. The next question pertains to sentence
imposed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for
petitioner vehemently submits that accident had taken
place during 2011 and more than 13 years are lapsed.
Accused/petitioner is aged about 26 years at the time of
accident. During pendency of this case, he got married
and having children. Considering the time taken in
disposal of case and social responsibilities of the accused
he may be imposed fine only as sentence. The learned
HCGP submits that looking to facts and circumstance of
the case, maximum permissible sentence be imposed. He
does not deserve any sympathy Courts below already
considered the same and imposed reasonably sentence.
Hence, prayed to confirm the same.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
25. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that due to the negligent driving of the ambulance
by the petitioner accident had taken place resulting in
death of the driver of the car and grievous injuries to all
the three inmates of the car. It indicates the speed in
which the ambulance might be driven by accused. If such
an accused is dealt with by imposing with nominal
sentence of fine of few hundred rupees, then it would be
injustice to the society as well as victims of accident. It
would encourage negligent rider/drivers of vehicle to drive
or ride their vehicles in rash and negligent manner
without caring for traffic rules or value of human life.
Therefore, sentencing him by imposing only a fine is not
proper. It is trite law that sentence shall not be too harsh
or nominal, but shall be just and reasonable.
26. In the case of Guru Basavaraj @ Benne
Settappa v. State of Karnataka1 the Hon'ble Apex
(2012) 8 SCC 734
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
Court referring to its earlier judgments, extracted the
principles of law held in those cases;
"19. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna [(1987)
1 SCC 538 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 198], while dealing
with the concept of adequate punishment in
relation to an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the
Court stated that: (SCC p. 541, para 7)
"7. ... Considerations of undue sympathy in
such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of
justice but will also undermine the confidence of
tihe public in the efficacy of the criminal [justice
dispensation] system. It need be hardly pointed out
that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs 250
on the driver of a motor vehicle for an offence
under Section 304-A IPC and that too without any
extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to
shock the conscience of anyone and will
unmistakably leave the impression that the trial
was a mockery of justice."
Thereafter, this Court enhanced the sentence
to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1000 and, in default, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
20. In Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.
[(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724] it has
been emphasised that undue sympathy resulting in
imposition of inadequate sentence would do more
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
harm to the justice system and undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law.
21. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of
Gujarat [(1994) 4 SCC 353 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1193]
the Court, adverting to the new challenges of
sentencing, opined that: (SCC p. 360, para 12)
"12. The Courts are constantly faced with the
situation where they are required to answer to new
challenges and mould the sentencing system to
meet those challenges. Protection of society and
deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law
and that is required to be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence."
27. On the basis of the above said observation, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"34. In view of the aforesaid, we have to
weigh whether the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant as regards the
mitigating factors deserves acceptance.
Compassion is being sought on the ground of
young age and mercy is being invoked on the
foundation of solemnisation of marriage. The date
of occurrence is in the month of March 2006. The
scars on the collective cannot be said to have been
forgotten. Weighing the individual difficulty as
against the social order, collective conscience and
the duty of the court, we are disposed to think that
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
the substantive sentence affirmed by the High
Court does not warrant any interference and,
accordingly, we concur with the same."
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the
imposition of sentence of imprisonment passed by the
High Court.
29. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira v.
State of Maharashtra2, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying
on the earlier judgment in the case of Dalbir singh Vs.
State of Haryana and other judgments observed as under,
it is necessary to re-produce the same in this judgment.
"88. In Dalbir Singh [(2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 1208] this Court was concerned with a
case where the accused was held guilty of the
offence under Section 304-A IPC. The Court made
the following observations (at pp. 84-85 of the
Report): (SCC para 1)
"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
(2012) 2 SCC 648
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
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 sentencing
sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere
would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a
frolic."
89. Then while dealing with Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it was observed
that Section 4 could be resorted to when the court
considers the circumstances of the case,
particularly the nature of the offence, and the court
forms its opinion that it is suitable and appropriate
for accomplishing a specified object that the
offender can be released on the probation of good
conduct. For application of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a convict under
Section 304-A IPC, the Court stated in para 11 of
the Report thus: (Dalbir Singh case [(2000) 5 SCC
82 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1208] , SCC p. 86)
"11. Courts must bear in mind that when any
plea is made based on Section 4 of the PO Act for
application to a convicted person under Section
304-A IPC, that road accidents have proliferated to
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
an alarming extent and the toll is galloping day by
day in India, and that no solution is in sight nor
suggested by any quarter to bring them down."
90. Further, dealing with this aspect, in para
13 of the Report, this Court stated: (Dalbir Singh
case [(2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1208] ,
SCC p. 87)
"13. 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 PO 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
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
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 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."
30. Considering the said facts, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:
"97. The facts and circumstances of the case
which have been proved by the prosecution in
bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section
304 Part II IPC undoubtedly show a despicable
aggravated offence warranting punishment
proportionate to the crime. Seven precious human
lives were lost by the act of the accused. For an
offence like this which has been proved against the
appellant, sentence of three years awarded by the
High Court is too meager and not adequate but since
no appeal has been preferred by the State, we
refrain from considering the matter for
enhancement. By letting the appellant away on the
sentence already undergone ie. two months in a case
like this, in our view, would be travesty of justice and
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
highly unjust, unfair, improper and disproportionate
to the gravity of crime. It is true that the appellant
has paid compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- but no
amount of compensation could relieve the families of
victims from the constant agony. As a matter of
fact, the High Court had been quite considerate and
lenient in awarding to the appellant sentence of
three years for an offence under Section 304 Part II
IPC where seven persons were killed."
31. In the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh
Bakshi3, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"23. In the instant case the factum of rash
and negligent driving has been established. This
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 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. The protagonists, as we
perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with
means has, in possibility, graduated himself to
harbour the idea that he can escape from the
substantive sentence by payment of compensation.
(2015) 5 SCC 182
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
Neither the law nor the court that implements the
law should ever get oblivious of the fact that in
such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims
who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, is
worse than death. Such developing of notions is a
dangerous phenomenon in an orderly society.
Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all
circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious
is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the
luxuriously temperamental.
24. Needless to say, the principle of
sentencing recognises the corrective measures but
there are occasions when the deterrence is an
imperative necessity depending upon the facts of
the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we
are constrained to say that the High Court has been
swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying
the principle that payment of compensation is a
factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is
absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It
is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is
"the crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and
"queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime
blights not only the lives of the victims but of many
others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith
of the public in judicial system. In our view, the
sentence of one year as imposed by the trial
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
Magistrate which has been affirmed by the
appellate court should be reduced to six months.
25. Before parting with the case we are
compelled to observe that India has a disreputable
record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant
attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are
the "Emperors of all they survey". Drunkenness
contributes to careless driving where the other
people become their prey. The poor feel that their
lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of
uncertainty and the civilised persons drive in
constant fear but still apprehensive about the
obnoxious attitude of the people who project
themselves as "larger than life". In such obtaining
circumstances, we are bound to observe that the
lawmakers should scrutinise, relook and revisit the
sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC. We say so
with immense anguish."
32. In the above said judgments consistently it is
held by Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of accident while
imposing punishment for the offence punishable under
Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC too much leniency is
unwarranted. It is a trite law that sentence should be
proportionate to the offence committed by the accused. It
should not be too harsh or too nominal. The revision
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
petitioner due to his negligent driving caused the death of
one of the inmate of the car and also caused grievous
injury to other three inmates of the car. If only sentence
of fine is imposed, then it would be a nominal punishment
against the offence committed by him.
32.1 Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is not fit case to give the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act and imposition of nominal fine
amount to the accused/revision petitioner.
33. The facts and circumstances of the case relied
by learned counsel for the revision petitioner are totally
different. In the case of Paul George (supra), the
accused was the driver as well as a constable. The said
litigation was pending about 20 years. He was dismissed
from the service due to committing the said accident.
Considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the
Hon'ble Apex court extended the benefit of Section 360 of
Cr.P.C., which is on par with provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act. Principle of law laid down in the said
judgment does not help the petitioner.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
34. The trial Court looking to gravity of offence and
facts of the case imposed proper sentence. Neither it is too
harsh or nominal. Hence does not call for interference.
35. The Appellate Court re-appreciating the
evidence available on record conferred findings of trial
Court. There are no errors or illegality in the said
Judgment of Court below to interference.
36. For above reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is dismissed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.4 of 2015 dated
14.09.2016 is confirmed.
iii) The bail bond executed by the revision
petitioner stands cancelled.
vi) Forty Five (45) days time from this day is
granted to the revision petitioner to
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15558
surrender before the Trial Court to undergo
the sentence.
v) Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court Records along with copy of this order
to the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
