Karnataka High Court

Mahammadsab S/O Moulasab Buradi vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2024

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                      -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585
                                                            CRL.RP No. 100063 of 2018




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                 BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100063 OF 2018 (397-)

                      BETWEEN:

                      MAHAMMADSAB S/O MOULASAB BURADI
                      AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                      R/O: KONNUR, TQ: NARAGUND,
                      DIST: GADAG.
                                                                          ...PETITIONER
ANNAPURNA             (BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL

Digitally signed by   AND:
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL              THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Date: 2024.02.19      THROUGH KALADAGI P.S.
14:50:30 +0530
                      REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH,
                      DAHRWAD.

                                                                        ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

                           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                      SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE
                      RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY
                      SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.03.2018 BY
                      THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.09/2012 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
                      AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 11.01.2012
                      PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT IN CC
                      NO.487/211 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279,
                      304-A OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 187 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.


                           THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
                      COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585
                                      CRL.RP No. 100063 of 2018




                               ORDER

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read

with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for

short, 'the Cr.P.C.') is filed with a prayer to set aside the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, in

C.C.No.487/2011 dated 11.01.2012 and judgment and

order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Court of II

Additional district and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in

Criminal Appeal No.09/2013.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Facts leading to filing of this criminal revision

petition narrated briefly are, on 12.02.2011, around 6.45

p.m. when the son of complainant Bheemaraya was

walking on the road side, the bus bearing registration

No.KA-25/C-4083, which was driven by the petitioner

herein, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him

and caused the accident. In the said accident, Bheemaraya

was grievously injured and he was shifted to the nearby

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries. It is in

this background, PW.1 who is the father of the deceased

had lodged a complaint as per the Ex.P.1 and a case was

registered against the petitioner herein for the offences

punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and Section 187 of the

Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the M.V.Act').

4. After investigation of the said case, charge

sheet was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner had

pleaded not guilty before the trial Court and claimed to be

tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case had

examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and also got

marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P.10. In support of his

defence the petitioner had not led any defence evidence.

The trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on

both sides convicted the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and

Section 187 of the M.V.Act and sentenced him to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and pay

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

imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offence

punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, petitioner was

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

For the offence punishable under Section 187 of the

M.V.Act, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 15 days and pay a fine of

Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of 15 days. The petitioner was also directed to

pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to PW.1-complainant

who is the father of deceased-Bheemaraya. The said

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

the trial Court was confirmed in Criminal Appeal

No.09/2012 by the Court of II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, vide judgment and order dated

07.03.2018.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

during the pendency of this criminal revision petition the

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. He

submits that PW1-complainant who is the father of the

deceased-Bheemaraya and his family members have come

forward to settle the dispute with the petitioner and they

have agreed to receive a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the

petitioner towards compensation. He submits that having

regard to the aforesaid settlement arrived between the

parties, the petitioner and PW.1-complainant who is the

father of deceased-Bheemaraya have filed a joint memo

and they have prayed to permit the parties to compound

the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted.

6. 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, petitioner

cannot be acquitted.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

7. 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 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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

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 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."

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

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.

10. Accident is of the year 2011. The parties have

filed a joint memo seeking permission of this Court to

compound the offences for which the petitioner has been

convicted and sentenced by the Courts below and in the

joint memo, petitioner and defacto-complainant have

stated that the dispute between them has been amicably

settled and defacto-complainant has received a sum of

Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner which would be inclusive

of Rs.50,000/- compensation amount directed by the trial

Court. The defacto complainant who is present before the

Court along with his wife has acknowledged the receipt of

Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner.

11. Under these circumstances, I am of the

considered view that lenient view is required to be taken in

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585

the matter and the order of sentence passed by the Courts

below is required to be modified. Accordingly, following:

ORDER

a) Criminal revision petition is partly allowed.

b) The judgment and order of conviction passed

by the trial Court which is upheld by the

appellate Court convicting the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 279 and

304A of the IPC and Section 187 of the M.V.Act

is confirmed.

c) The order of sentence passed by trial Court is

modified and for the offence punishable under

Section 304A of the IPC the petitioner is

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till

the rising of Court and he shall pay fine of

Rs.1,000/-.