Karnataka High Court
Smt Lenny Menezes vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13629
CRL.RP No. 202 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 202 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. LENNY MENEZES,
AGED 75 YEARS,
W/O LATE S.J.MENEZES,
R/O WHITE HOUSE,
NEAR MAIDANA, KADRI TEMPLE ROAD,
KADRI, MANGALURU - 575 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA -
THROUGH THE POLICE
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TRAFFIC CIRCLE,
KARNATAKA
MANGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13629
CRL.RP No. 202 of 2016
DATED 01.10.2008 PASSED IN C.C.NO.6388/2004 BY THE
JMFC (III COURT), MANGALURU AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
DATED 10.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.335/2008 AND ACQUIT THE
PETR. HEREIN IN C.C.NO.6388/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
JMFC (III COURT), MANGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused who is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 15(a)
read with Section 180 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is before this
Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.08.2004 at
about 8:45 a.m., the accused drove the Tata Estate Car on the
public road from Valencia to Nandigudde in a rash and negligent
manner, so as to endanger the human life, and dashed against the
motorcycle on the rear side, due to which, the rider sustained
grievous injuries, and succumbed to the same.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to
P.W.8 and exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to P18(a). The trial Court
after appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution
has proved the guilt against petitioner/accused beyond all
reasonable doubt, and convicted the petitioner of the aforesaid
NC: 2024:KHC:13629
offences, and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
under Section 304 of IPC, which was confirmed by the learned
Sessions Judge. Against which, the present revision petition is
filed.
4. Sri. P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel representing
the petitioner's counsel submits that, the evidence on record does
not establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner/accused. Therefore, in the
absence of cogent evidence, the judgment of conviction is not
sustainable in law.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State would contend that, the evidence on record
clearly established that the accident occurred solely on account of
rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused and therefore,
the impugned judgment of conviction does not warrant any
interference.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the Trial Court records.
7. The accident is not disputed and it is also not disputed
that the car which was driven by the petitioner dashed on the rear
side of the motorcycle, resulting in death of the rider of the
motorcycle. A perusal of the evidence on record clearly established
NC: 2024:KHC:13629
that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent
driving by the petitioner/accused.
8. The offence under Section 304-A of IPC is punishable
with imprisonment for a period of two years or with fine or with
both. The accident is of the year 2004. The petitioner is aged
about 84 years, and the petitioner is a woman. In similar
circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.2719/2023
has released the accused therein instead of sentencing to any
punishment but with an admonition. Taking into account that the
petitioner is a woman, and aged about 84 years as of today, it
would be appropriate to release the petitioner/accused instead of
sentencing her to any punishment with a direction to pay suitable
compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 01.10.2008 passed by the JMFC-III
Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada in
C.C.No.6388/2004 confirmed by the II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in
Crl.A.No.335/2008 vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 is
modified as follows:
a. The judgment of convicting the
petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 15(a) read
with Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act is confirmed.
b. The order of sentence dated 01.10.2008
NC: 2024:KHC:13629
passed in C.C.No.6388/2004 by the the JMFC-III Court,
Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada sentencing the
petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months for the offence punishable under
Section 279 of IPC and simple imprisonment for period
of one year for the offence punishable under Section
304-A is hereby set aside.
c. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay
a fine amount of Rs.75,000/- within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Failing which, the petitioner/accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months.
d. Out of the fine amount of Rs.75,000/-, an
amount of Rs.70,000/- to be paid to the
victim-P.W.4/father of the deceased and balance
amount of Rs.5,000/- to be released in favour of the
State Exchequer.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
