Karnataka High Court
M Rajuram vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24257
CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.280 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
M RAJURAM
S/O MANGILAL
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.60, SUBHASH NAGAR
T C PALYA MAIN ROAD,
BHATTARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560049
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by
MALATESH (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
KC THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
Location: CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
HIGH
COURT OF DATED 27.01.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
KARNATAKA SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
IN CRL.A.NO.70/2015 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 15.10.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.C.J.M.,
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1952/2014 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP
BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
279, 338, 304-A OF IPC AND SECTION 134-A AND 134-B R/W
187 OF I.M.V. ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24257
CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri K.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court
Government pleader
2. Accused has preferred the present revision petition
assailing the order of conviction passed in C.C. No.1952/2014
dated 15.10.2015 on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, confirmed in
Criminal Appeal No.70/2015 dated 27.01.2021 on the file of the
Prl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,
wherein accused has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal
Code and awarded sentence of imprisonment for two years for
the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. After hearing the parties, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that, in the event of this Court confirming
the conviction, Court may consider the case of the revision
NC: 2024:KHC:24257
petitioner in reducing the sentence for the offence punishable
under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader however submits
that if the sentence is reduced, it would send a wrong message
to the Society and it would be adverse to the principles of law
enunciated in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh
Bakshi reported in (2015)5 SCC 182.
5. In view of rival contentions of the parties, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously, having regard to
the scope of the revisional jurisdiction.
6. No doubt, the material on record would go to show that
accused has not furnished any explanation while recording his
statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure nor placed any defence evidence.
7. But fact remains that the Tata 709 tempo bearing
registration No. KA51/7340 being driven by the accused dashed
against a bicycle rider and thereafter tempo was stopped after
some distance and accused ran away from the spot. It is the
persons who are passersby who secured the ambulance and
NC: 2024:KHC:24257
shifted the injured to the hospital. Admittedly, the width of the
road is 20 feet and therefore there was enough space to avoid
the accident.
8. Mitigating circumstances as is contended on behalf of the
revision petitioner is that the petitioner was young, aged 27
years as on the date of the accident and is now married and is
having a family to maintain and the accident has occurred
beyond the reach of human error and therefore, sought for
reduction of sentence.
9. Taking note of the fact that one person has been injured
and another person has lost his life in the accident, the
maximum punishment of two years imprisonment is imposed
by the learned trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge
in the First Appellate Court.
10. No special reasons are assigned for awarding the
maximum punishment by the learned trial Magistrate or by the
learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
11. In paragraph 14, the learned trial Magistrate has stated
that accused ran away from the spot and therefore he is not
NC: 2024:KHC:24257
entitled to any mercy. But that may not be the special reason
to award maximum punishment.
12. Therefore, on the charge of 304A IPC, if the
imprisonment is reduced from two years to one year, ends of
justice would be met by enhancing the fine amount from
₹5,000/- to ₹25,000/-, of which entire sum of ₹25,000/- be
ordered to be paid as compensation to the parents of the
deceased.
13. Accordingly, the following.
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal
Code, sentence of two years imprisonment
awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate
confirmed by the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court is modified to one year, and
accused is sentenced to pay fine of ₹25,000/-
inclusive of the fine of ₹5,000/- imposed by
NC: 2024:KHC:24257
the learned Trial Magistrate, in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months.
(iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
(iv) Time is granted to the accused to pay the fine
amount and to surrender for serving the
remaining part of the imprisonment till 25th
July, 2024.
(v) Office is directed to return the trial court
records with copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
