Karnataka High Court
Kariyappalada Maddanappa S/O Halappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100207 OF 2018
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
KARIYAPPALADA MADDANAPPA S/O. HALAPPA,
AGE: ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF AUTO BEARING
REG. NO. KA-35/A-7744, ,
R/O. K. AYYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT. S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
IN HADAGALI POLICE STATION,
HADAGALI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
SHAKAMBARI (BY SMT. MALA. BHUTE, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka, THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Dharwad Bench SECTION 397(1) AND 401 OF CODE OF CRMINAL PROCEDURE
1973. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED
29.08.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO. 5033/2016 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
03.02.2025. COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J., MADE THE ORDER
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.
HUDDAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24th March 2016
passed in CC No.162/2012 by the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hadagali and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5033/2016
dated 29th August 2018 by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting at Hosapete.
2. The parties to this revision petition are referred
as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. That the accused/present petitioner was charge
sheeted by CPI, Hadagali Circle, Hadagali for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and
Sections 183, 187 and 192A of Indian Motor Vehicle Act
alleging that on 13.7.2011 when CWs. 1 to 8 and
deceased Kumari Shantha Uppar were traveling in his APE
Auto bearing Regn.No.KA-35/A-7744 on hire basis and
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
when they were returning from Bettadamalleshwara
temple after performing Pooja at about 5.10 a.m. because
of rash and negligent driving of said auto, it was capsized.
The said accident has taken place because of rash and
negligent driving of the said vehicle by the accused. In the
said accident, CWs 1 to 8 sustained simple and grievous
injuries and Kumari Shantha Uppar died because of
accidental injuries on the way to the Hospital. With these
allegations, a complaint came to be filed by PW.1 which
was registered in Crime No.29/2011 of Ittigi Police Station
and criminal law was set in motion.
4. On completion of the investigation, the CPI filed
the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid
offences. On filing the charge sheet, cognizance of the
offence was taken, presence of the accused was secured
and he was enlarged on bail. Copies of the police papers
were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207
of Cr.PC. After recording the plea of the accused, he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in
all examined 16 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 so
also MOs Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter closed prosecution
evidence. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was
questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.PC so as to enable
him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing
in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his
complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any
defence evidence.
6. On hearing the arguments and after evaluation
and assessment of the evidence, the learned trial Court
found the accused guilty of committing offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 304A of IPC and
Sec.183, 187 and 192A of Motor Vehicle Act and
sentenced him as under:
"The accused is sentenced undergo S.I. for
one year for the offence p/u/s. 304(A) of IPC and
pay fine of Rs.5.000/- and in default of payment
of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for
one month for the offence p/u/s. 279 of IPC and
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
pay fine of Rs.800/-, in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days.
The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for
one month for the offence p/u/s. 337 of IPC and
pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days.
The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for
one month for the offence p/u/s. 338 of IPC and
pay fine of Rs.900/-, in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.100/- for the offence p/u/s.183 of IMV Act, in
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I.
for 10 days.
The accused is sentenced to pay line of
Rs.800/- for the offence p/u/s.187 of IMV Act, in
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I.
for 10 days.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence p/u/s.192-A of IMV
Act, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo S.I. for 10 days.
All the sentences are run concurrently."
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court,
the accused preferred Criminal Appeal no.5033/2016
before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ballari sitting at Hosapete. The First Appellate Court on
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
hearing the arguments of both side confirmed the
judgment of the trial Court vide judgment dated
29.8.2018. This is how now the petitioner is before this
Court seeking setting aside of impugned judgments of the
Courts below.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri
Prashanth S.Kadadevar would submit that, the said
accident has not taken place because of rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle by the accused in the
manner alleged by the prosecution. He would submit that,
when the accused was driving his vehicle along with CWs 1
to 8 and deceased Shantha, it was a hilly area and he had
taken all available precautions. When the said vehicle
came at the curve area, because of coming across of the
cattle from the forest area situated by the side of the
scene of offence, he applied brake and the said cattle
dashed to the auto and thereby it was capsized. He would
submit that, this factual situation though elicited in the
cross examination from the mouth of witnesses examined
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
by the prosecution is not appreciated by the trial Court as
well as the first appellate Court. He would submit that,
because of the intervention of the said cattle, the said
accident has taken place. Therefore, he would submit that,
no rashness and negligence can be attributed against the
accused. He would further submit that, if the court comes
to the conclusion that, the said accident has taken place
because of rash and negligent driving of the offending
auto, the punishment so imposed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the first appellate Court have to be set aside
and it has to be modified by setting aside the sentence of
imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC
and fine may be imposed.
9. In support of his submission, he relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between
Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 764 and also
judgment in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of police in
Criminal Appeal No.536/2021 decided on 30.6.2021.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
Placing reliance upon these two judgments, he would
submit that, so far as offence under Section 304A of IPC is
concerned, accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for one year and also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default
sentence. In view of the judgment cited supra, as the
offence has taken place in the year 2011 and after 14
years of such occurrence sending the accused to undergo
the imprisonment would be rather harsh, therefore, in the
ends of promoting justice, he would submit to impose fine
only. He prays to allow the revision petition.
10. As against this submission, the learned
Smt.Mala Bhuti, AGA for State supported the reasons
assigned by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court
and would submit that, the very carrying of eight
passengers along with him in the offending vehicle having
a minimum capacity to carry the passengers itself
amounts to rashness and negligence. Learned AGA
submits that, when the accused knew that he was driving
the said vehicle in a hilly area, surrounded by the forest
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
that too getting down from the hilly area he would have
been more cautious. The said accident has taken place in a
steep curve area and because of his rashness and
negligence only, the said offending vehicle capsized and
inmates of the said auto sustained simple and grievous
injuries and deceased Shantha having sustained grievous
injuries on the vital part of her body died on the way to
the Hospital. It was a sheer negligence and rashness on
the part of the accused. Therefore, Smt.Mala Bhuti, AGA
supports the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the
first appellate Court. She would submit that the citations
so relied upon by the counsel for the accused have no
relevance to the facts of the case and each case has to be
decided based upon the facts of each case. Therefore, she
submits to dismiss the petition.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments of both the side, perused the records. In view
of rival submissions of both the side, the point that is to be
decided in this revision is:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
"Whether the learned trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court have committed any factual or
legal error in finding the accused guilty of
committing the offences and sentencing him as
aforesaid?"
My answer to the above point is in the negative for
the following reasons:
12. Before adverting to the other aspects of the
case, it is just and proper to narrate the admitted facts
between both the sides. Accused was the driver of APE
Auto bearing Regn.No.KA-35/A-7744 when the accident
took place on 13.7.2011 at 5.10 p.m. At the time of the
said accident, CWs 1 to 8 and Kum.Shantha Uppara were
travelling as inmates of the said auto. In the said accident,
CWs 1 to 5 and 7 and 8 sustained simple injuries and
grievous injuries and CW.6 suffered grievous injuries. In
the said accident, Kum.Shantha Uppara having sustained
grievous accidental injuries died on the way to the
Hospital. The said accident has taken place not because of
any mechanical defects in the auto. With regard to the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
said accident, a crime was registered in Crime No.29/2011
of Ittigi Police Station for the aforesaid offences. These are
the admitted facts which need not be proved. However, to
prove about the death of Shantha Uppara in the said
accident, the prosecution relied upon the inquest
panchanama marked as Ex.P5 and PM report as per
Ex.P10. Ex.P11 to P18 are the wound certificates of CWs 1
to 8 which prove the simple and grievous injuries
sustained by the inmates of the said auto vehicle. It is not
in dispute that, these CW.1 to 8 were traveling as inmates
along with Shantha Uppara in the said vehicle. The
photographs so produced show where exactly the accident
has taken place and also show the dead body of deceased
Shantha, they are marked at Ex.P2 to P4. Ex.P6 is the
spot panchanama and P7 is the rough sketch. Contents of
these two documents are not disputed by the defence.
Ex.P8 is the IMV report which is also not disputed by the
defence. Ex.P1 is the complaint and P9 is the FIR. While
marking the aforesaid documents and MOs nos.1 and 2,
no little finger was raised by the defence.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
13. Now let me analyze as to whether the
prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the said fact,
prosecution is under obligation to prove the essential
ingredients of Section 279 of IPC, that a person drives any
vehicle, such driving is on any public way, in a rash and
negligent manner endangering human life which is likely to
cause hurt or injury to any other person. That means,
specific evidence is required to be adduced by the
prosecution to prove the rash and negligent driving if any
on the part of the accused. Accused was a driver of the
said offending vehicle and he was driving the said vehicle
on a public way is not in dispute. Categorically accused
admits the same. So also, at the time of accident, PW.1 Y.
Mallikarjuna complainant the physical education teacher,
PW.2 Girija, PW.3 Geetha, PW.4 Manjula PW.5 Anjali,
PW.6 M.Sunil Kumar were the inmates of the said vehicle
along with deceased Shantha is not in dispute.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
14. On scrupulous reading of PWs 1 to 6 stated
supra, consistently these inmates of the offending vehicle
driven by accused have stated that, as the accused was
driving the vehicle in high speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, because of the same, it capsized. This evidence
spoken to by these PWs.1 to 6 is not properly denied in
the cross-examination. The fact that was tried to bring on
record was, because of movement of the cattle on the
road which came from the forest side and they were
fighting with each other, at that time, they came and
dashed to the offending vehicle and because of the same,
the said accident took place. The said accident has taken
place at 5.10 p.m. on 13.7.2011. It is elicited that, during
evening hours after grazing, the cattle move towards their
respective houses. That means, the fact of movement of
the cattle was very much within the knowledge of accused.
Further, he was driving his vehicle in a hilly area and he
was getting down from the hilly area on the public way.
These inmates have given graphic account of the accident
that, how far the accused was rash and negligent in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
driving his vehicle. When the capacity of the said vehicle
was just at the most 3+1, he was carrying eight
passengers on hire basis and PW.1 states that, all of them
hired the said vehicle to go to the aforesaid temple.
Beyond the capacity and permit, the accused carried the
passengers and this act of the accused itself amounts to
rashness and negligence. Therefore, police have filed
charge sheet against the accused for violation of the
permit conditions. This fact is not denied by the accused.
15. As stated supra, as per the FIR and evidence
collected by the IO, so also the evidence of PWs 1 to 6
stated supra, have consistently spoken about the rash and
negligent driving of the auto by the accused. Because of
the said rash and negligent act being the proximate cause
for the accident, he is found guilty by the Courts below.
That means, the accident was caused by the
accused/petitioner was the direct and proximate cause
which lead to the death of Shantha Uppar. Therefore, we
do not find any error committed by the trial Court and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
appellate Court in giving such findings. The said vehicle
itself was capsized and PWs 1 to 6 categorically have
spoken about the accident and both the courts have given
concurrent findings. The prosecution has taken pain to
examine 16 witnesses and got marked substantial
documents which are marked without any objections. The
very act of the accused can be gathered to determine the
speed of the vehicle that whether the accused was driving
rashly and negligently. Even the law says, if the driver is
driving the vehicle in slow speed but recklessly and
negligently, it would amount to `rash and negligent
driving' within the meaning of Section 279 of IPC. By the
words `rash driving', it cannot be automatically imagined
that, the offending vehicle alleged to be rash in its driving,
should also necessarily be coupled with high speed - a
rash act is primarily an over hasty act - opposed to a
deliberate act. Taking into consideration of the
topographical features of the road in a curve area, the said
offending vehicle capsized, then, it can be inferred that,
this accused was very much rash though knew that eight
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
passengers were traveling as inmates of his vehicle and
this rash act can be termed as deliberate act i.e. done by
the accused without due care and caution. That means, it
was imperative duty of the accused to drive his vehicle
when he was carrying eight passengers with him to adopt
such reasonable and proper care and precaution so as to
save the consequential injuries, as well as life of inmates.
But, PWs. 1 to 6 are categorical about the rash and
negligent act with the deliberate driving of vehicle in that
manner.
16. PW.7 B.Vaamadev is pancha to Ex.P6 and he
has signed the said document at the scene of offence and
also speaks about taking of photographs. Though he has
been cross-examined by the defence, but he is consistent
about his presence when the said panchanama was
prepared by the Police. PW.8 Bhavikatti Beeresh is another
pancha to Ex.P6 and he corroborates the evidence of PW.7
in material particulars. He too has withstood the test of
cross-examination. PW.9 Kotresh is the owner of the said
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
Auto vehicle bearing Regn.KA-35/A-7744 he is specific
that, accused at the time of accident was driver of the said
vehicle and he came to know about the accident and
injuries suffered by the inmates of the vehicle so also the
death of Shantha. Evidence of this PW.9 is not disputed by
the defence.
17. PW.10 P.Chaman Sab, the then HC of Hadagali
PS carried the FIR to the Magistrate and this fact is not
disputed by the defence. No cross-examination is directed
to PW.10. PW.11 N.Shekhar the MV Inspector had
mechanically examined the vehicle and opined that said
accident has taken place not because of any mechanical
defects though he found four damages to the said vehicle
which are post accident. The fact of opinion expressed by
this PW.11 the MV Inspector is not disputed by the
defence.
18. PW.12 K.G.Govindaraj, the then PSI on getting
information about the accident went to the Hospital and
recorded the statement of PW.1, registered the crime and
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
set the criminal law in motion. Though lengthy cross
examination is directed to this PW.12 but, nothing worth is
elicited to disbelieve his version stated in his chief
examination.
19. PW.13 Dr.Shivakumar is the doctor who
conducted the Post mortem on the dead body of deceased
Shantha as per Ex.P10 and opines that because of the
accidental injuries, Shantha died. He also examined the
inmates of the said vehicle and issued the wound
certificate stated supra and the said inmates have
sustained accidental injuries. The fact of conducting post
mortem and the clinically examining the injured is not
disputed by the defence. Therefore, the evidence of this
doctor has to be accepted that, he has conducted the post
mortem on the dead body of deceased Shantha Uppara
and clinically examined the inmates of the said vehicle and
issued the wound certificate stated supra.
20. PW.14 Prakash Rathod was CPI at the relevant
time who took up the investigation, went to scene of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
offence, conducted panchanama on completion of
investigation he filed the charge sheet. In all criminal
cases, panchas are authors of panchanama and IOs are
the supervisors of investigation therefore, evidence of
PW.13 AND 14 has to be accepted about registering the
crime and conducting investigation and filing of charge
sheet.
21. PW.15 Chandrappa B., is inquest pancha to
Ex.P5 and he speaks about conducting of inquest
panchanama on the dead body of deceased so also
Kotresh. Death of Shantha Uppara is not denied therefore,
evidence of PW.15 AND 16 has to be accepted that they
were present when the said panchanama was prepared.
22. In a case of present nature, the scene of
pancahnama as well as sketch plays an important role
which depicts the exact scene of offence. On scrupulous
reading of these two documents, they do suggest that, the
said accident has taken place in a downal area coming
from Bettadamalleshwara Temple road that too in a curve
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
area in the middle of the road. The accused had sufficient
space towards his left side and right side of the road. None
of the witnesses have spoken that, cattle came across the
vehicle fighting with each other and dashed to the
offending vehicle. The suggestions so directed to PW. 1 to
6 in this regard is categorically denied by these witnesses
being the inmates of the said offending vehicle. So
therefore, the evidence placed on record by the
prosecution categorically proves that, because of rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle only which was the
direct and proximate cause which lead to the death of
Shantha and injuries to PW.1 to 6 itself, proves the act of
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the
accused. So to say, there was no other intervening
negligent act which became the cause for the accident. In
a case of present nature, the evidence spoken to by the
witnesses especially that of PWs.1 to 6 remain
unchallenged which supports the case of the prosecution.
In this case, undue sympathy cannot be shown which may
result in miscarriage of justice and might undermine the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
confidence of public in criminal justice dispensation
system. When the most of the factual evidence is admitted
by the defence, now the defence cannot contend that,
accused was innocent and very much cautious and has
taken all precautions to avoid any accident. No such
evidence is brought on record. In a case of present nature,
driver of the offending vehicle would have been the best
witness to speak regarding what made him to drive the
vehicle in such manner. There is no explanation offered by
the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313
of Cr.PC. He has submitted that, he has nothing to say
before the Court while recording the said statement. This
itself goes to establish that, silence on the part of the
accused in not giving explanation gives room to draw
adverse inference against accused. Accordingly, it is
drawn.
23. Therefore, I do not find any factual or legal
error in finding the accused guilty of the aforesaid
offences.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
24. As narrated in the foregoing paragraphs,
accused relied upon two judgments i.e., Prakash
Chandra Agnihotri and Surendran supra. In the first
judgment cited supra, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court the occurrence took place in the year 1972 and
appellant through on bail, he was sentenced to six months
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250/-. It is
observed that, in view of the date of occurrence of the
accident, it would be rather harsh to send the accused to
send to jail after 18 years of occurrence. With regard to
the ratio so laid down, there is no dispute as such. With
great respect to the said ratio, the facts of this case are
quite different and this accused was carrying eight
passengers who were all students along with PE Teacher of
the School. They had been to the temple, this accused was
carrying students and PE Teacher by hiring his vehicle and
when he was returning with the said students and PW.1
the Physical Education Teacher in a curve area which was
having a downal road, the said vehicle capsized. The facts
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
of this case are different. No doubt the accident has taken
place in the year 2011 and now we are in the year 2025.
Almost 14 years have been lapsed. But, in an offence of
present nature, a minimum sentence has to be imposed.
25. So far as second judgment is concerned, it was
a case registered under the provisions of Sections 279,
337 and 338 of IPC and the punishment prescribed for the
said offences is imprisonment or fine. Therefore, the Court
has exercised discretion and imposed fine only. Here the
wording used in Section 304A of IPC is imprisonment and
fine. Therefore, the judgment in Surendran supra relied
upon by the counsel for the accused is not relevant to the
facts of this case.
26. With regard to the imposition of sentence for
the offence under Section 304A of IPC is concerned, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Saurabh
Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 has held as under:
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
"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. 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
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
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 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
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
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."
27. As stated supra, with regard to offence under
Section 304A of IPC accused is directed to undergo
sentence of one year and also he is sentenced to pay the
fine. So far as other offences are concerned, he is directed
to pay the fine amount and in default, he is directed to
undergo sentence. It is submitted by the counsel for the
accused-petitioner, the accident is of the year 2011. As
per the cause-title, accused was aged 23 years at the time
of accident and he was quite young. This is the only
mitigating circumstances to show any leniency. In view of
the judgment in Saurabh Bhakshi supra, minimum
sentence has to be imposed in an offence of present
nature, instead of one year, looking to the date of
accident, till this date, if some leniency is shown in
modifying the sentence, it would meet the ends of justice.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
CRL.RP No. 100207 of 2018
From 2011 till this day, the accused petitioner must have
suffered mentally, physically and financially. Therefore, if
the accused is sentenced to undergo minimum sentence of
six months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, it
would meet the ends of justice. So far as imposition of
sentence for other offences is concerned, it remains
unaltered.
28. Accordingly, the aforesaid point is answered in
the negative.
Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition is allowed in-part.
ii. Impugned judgment of Conviction and
order of sentence passed by the III Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting
at Hosapete in Criminal Appeal
No.5033/2016 dated 29.08.2018
punishable for the offences under
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and
Section 183, 187 and 192A of MV Act is
confirmed so also, conviction under
Section 304A of IPC. However, there
shall be modification of the sentence for
the said offences under Section 304A of
IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for six
months for the said offence.
iii. Sentence so imposed for other offences
remain unaltered.
iv. The accused shall surrender before the
trial Court within fifteen days from today
and shall undergo sentence.
v. Send the operative portion of the
judgment to the trial Court forthwith for
compliance through mail.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3659
vi. Send back the trial Court records
alongwith a copy of the judgment
forthwith. So also send the copy of the
judgment of the first appellate court for
reference.
vii. The order regarding disposal of the
property remains as it is.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK/CT:VG
