Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 282 (KAR)

Kamala v. State of Karnataka

2022-03-02

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and set aside the judgment and order of sentence dtd. 2/1/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya in C.C.No.54/2008 and the judgment dtd. 25/10/2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.1/2012 and acquit the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner on 12/8/2007 at about 3:15 p.m., being the driver of a Car bearing registration No.KA-05 ME 3392 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Hosabudanur Village Bus Stand on Bengaluru-Mysuru road. At that time, the deceased as well as the other injured persons were on their Bajaj Discover motorcycle on the left side of the road talking to each other. The accused being a driver of the aforesaid Car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against them, as a result, one died on the spot and another died on the way to the hospital and others have sustained the grievous injuries. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the petitioner examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 8(a). The petitioner/accused has not led any evidence and no documents are marked before the Trial Court. The trial Judge after considering both oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 338 and 304A of IPC and ordered the petitioner to undergo sentence for a period of one year with fine for each of the offences, the same was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1/2012. 5. The First Appellate Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction, sentence and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence and also confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before the Court. 6. 5. The First Appellate Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction, sentence and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence and also confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before the Court. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the sentencing policy in an accident case should be harmoniously blended with the cause of the accident and the reason for the accident, in addition to the rash or negligent act of the vehicle driver, in the instant case this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. The learned senior counsel would vehemently contend that this petitioner is a social worker and not involved in any of the similar offences and also the petitioner was proceeding on the left side of the road and the accident was taken place on the left side of the road. The very conclusion of the Trial Court is that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a high speed and has gone beyond left side edge of the road, is not based on any material; there is no any proximity to cause of death as well as the act of this petitioner. Apart from that, the learned senior counsel would also vehemently contend that the sentence of one year is very harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the offences and it requires an interference of this Court. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka reported in (2008) 8 SCC 225 . The learned senior counsel referring to this judgment brought to the notice of this Court that the factual aspects of the case as well as the discussion made by the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 with regard to sentence and reduce the sentence by awarding compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh to the mother of the victim by way of compensation within three months. When such being the case, the learned senior counsel also would vehemently contend that when this petitioner is working as a social worker and not indulged in any similar offences, this Court has to take note of the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra. 8. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court an unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1047/2012 dtd. 3/10/2021 (Sri Venkateshaiah v. State of Karnataka), wherein, this Court taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Manish Jalan's case (supra), awarded an amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh as fine, in default of payment of deposit of fine amount, ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that both the Courts have given the finding regarding this petitioner had committed the offences and particularly relying upon the prosecution witnesses comes to the conclusion that the accident was on account of this petitioner only. The First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the material available on record and confirmed the judgment. 10. The learned High Court Government Pleader in support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 , and brought to the notice of this Court particularly, paragraph No.13, the Apex Court held that, it cannot be said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim, regardless of the gravity of the crime under Sec. 304-A IPC, there can be reduction of sentence. The Apex Court also discussed different judgments in paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17. Having discussed the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also considering the material on record in paragraph No.23, the Court comes to the conclusion that the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. Further observed that the Apex 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. Further observed that the Apex 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 is also observed that 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. Having observed this in paragraph No.24, the Apex Court held that needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. Having considered the material on record and considering the mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is observed that, 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. 11. Having considered the grounds urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and in the case on hand, the material before the Court is that the accident was taken place on 12/8/2007 almost 15 years back and the material discloses that there were two deaths on account of the accident i.e., one on the spot and another is subsequent to the accident and other victims have also suffered grievous injuries. 12. The principles laid down in the judgments referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondentState, no doubt, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Manish Jalan's case (supra), almost after the 7 years of the said judgment, the Apex Court judgment referred by the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State comes to the conclusion that the rehabilitation or payment of compensation is not the need of the hour and also further observed that there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case and set aside the order of the High Court and sentenced the petitioner in the said case for six months instead of one year. 13. 13. I have already pointed out that in the case on hand an accident was of the year 2007 and now we are in the year 2022. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the accident was on account of rash and negligence driving on the part of the petitioner herein. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court and also considering the death of two victims and also the other injured persons, though, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argued that with regard to the sentence is concerned, no doubt, the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra by the learned learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, reduced the sentence for a period of six months. No doubt, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is a Social Worker and not having any criminal antecedents and the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offences and also the seriousness of the allegations when two persons have lost their lives on account of this accident and others have also sustained grievous injuries, I am of the opinion that in view of the principles laid down in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra) referred by learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, it is not a fit case to even to reduce the sentence to six months as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Each facts and circumstances of the case has to be looked into. The gravity of the offences and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the same has been proved by the prosecution and also affirmed by the First Appellate Court. No doubt, this Court in an unreported judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No.1047/2012 dtd. 3/10/2021, by referring the judgment of Manish Jalan's case (supra) in the month of 3/9/2021, awarded compensation. But the judgment of the Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra) has not brought to the notice of this Court while delivering the judgment by the co-ordinate bench. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider the said judgment also. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Revision petition either to set aside or to modify the sentence considering the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offences and two persons have lost their life. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider the said judgment also. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Revision petition either to set aside or to modify the sentence considering the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offences and two persons have lost their life. Apart from that, others have also sustained the grievous injuries on account of the negligence act of the petitioner herein. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The Revision Petition is dismissed.