Criminal Revision Petition challenging conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. High Court held prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and refused to modify imprisonment sentence to fine based on Supreme Court precedents.
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2282/2012
BETWEEN :
V.M.MUNISWAMI S/O.HANUMAPPA, AGE-55 YEARS, OCC-DRIVER, R/O.VEERASANDRA, TQ-BANGARVE, T, KGF DEPOT, KSRTC QUARTERS, TQ-BANGARPET.
…….. PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.M.SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION, R/BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH, AT-DHARWAD-580 011.
…… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2010 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.86/2009 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HAVERI, CONVICTING HIM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304A OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- IN CASE OF ACCUSED FAILS TO PAY THE
2
Crl.R.P.2282/12
FINE AMOUNT, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE MONTH AND FURTHER SENTENCED HIM FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 337 OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS AND SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS.500/IN CASE OF ACCUSED FAILS TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 15 DAYS AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2012 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.73/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ACQUIT, THE PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused is before this Court assailing the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.86/2009 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Haveri (for short ‘the Trial Court’ for the sake of brevity) convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in
3
Crl.R.P.2282/12
default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.73/2010 vide Judgment dated 06.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short ‘the Appellate Court’ for the sake of brevity).
4
Crl.R.P.2282/12
5
Crl.R.P.2282/12
these materials came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict him as stated above. Assailing the said Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.73/2010 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after taking into consideration the materials on record found that there are no merits in the appeal and dismissed the same.
that even though it is the contention of the prosecution that the
6
Crl.R.P.2282/12
accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus in question, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, the witnesses have not deposed regarding such rash and negligent driving. P.W.4 is cited as eyewitness and P.W.5 as injured eyewitness. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 are also not helpful to the prosecution. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court solely relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and proceeded to convict the accused, which is bad under law. Therefore, he prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
7
Crl.R.P.2282/12
8
Crl.R.P.2282/12
the accused for the above said offences. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition as devoid of merits.
1 AIR 1987 SC 861
2 (2012) 2 SCC 182
9
Crl.R.P.2282/12
“Whether the revision petitioner has made out any grounds for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction or in the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court?”
My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
10
Crl.R.P.2282/12
11
Crl.R.P.2282/12
per Ex.P.2, this witness fully supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 is the co-pancha to the spot mahazar Ex.P.2, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the eyewitnesses being the passengers in the bus. But they have not chosen to support the case of the prosecution.
12
Crl.R.P.2282/12
whereas the offending bus was found on the middle of the road. Break marks of the bus is noted for about 40 feet from the scene of occurrence. All these facts disclose that the driver of the bus was driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed, as a result of which, he could not control his vehicle, dashed to the hind portion of the lorry.
13
Crl.R.P.2282/12
caused the death of deceased-Gulappa Nekar, who was the Conductor of the bus in question. The oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court unmistakenly prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offences, beyond reasonable doubt.
Nataraj S/o Siddalingaiah and Sri. Sunil S/o Manik
14
Crl.R.P.2282/12
Kadapatti . The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court showed leniency towards the accused by modifying the sentence and imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and imposed only the fine amount. But the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs.Krishna alias Raju (supra), considered the lenient view that is being shown to the accused while convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC held as under:
“6. The utter disregard shown by the Magistrate to the nature of the offences, particularly the one under S.304-A I.P.C., and the sentences provided for them under the Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, by imposing what may be termed as ‘flea-bite’ sentences on the respondent, should have spurred the High Court to not only pass appropriate strictures against the Magistrate but also to set right matters by enhancing the sentence at least for the conviction under S.304-A I.P.C. to a conscionable level in exercise of its power under S.377 I.P.C.
8. We are, therefore, constrained to do what the High Court should have done but, failed to do viz. enhance the sentence in the interests of justice. We, however, feel that the ends of justice would be met by enhancing the sentence for the most serious of the
15
Crl.R.P.2282/12
charges for which the respondent has been convicted viz. the charge under S.304-A I.P.C. According, we enhance the sentence for the conviction under S.304-A I.P.C. to six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months. We leave undisturbed the other convictions and sentences”
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs.
Balwindar Singh and others (supra), reiterated the position of law and held as under:
“13. It is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction. If anyone has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility with specific reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Considering the increased number of road accidents, this Court, on several occasions, has reminded the criminal courts dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Sections 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. we fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir Singh3 .
14. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the
3 (2008) 5 SCC 730
16
Crl.R.P.2282/12
prime considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court.
15. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous driving of vehicles, the courts are expected to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence if the prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In the light of the above principles, we express our inability to accept the reasoning of the High Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, that is, 15 days. Merely because the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, is also not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where five persons died due to negligent act of both the drivers, of the bus and the truck. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.5000/each. The trial court is directed to taken appropriate steps for surrender of the accused in both the appeals to serve the remaining period of sentence. The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned above.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17
Crl.R.P.2282/12
18
Crl.R.P.2282/12
away from the liability by paying fine amount without serving substantive sentence of imprisonment.
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
Ckk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner has made out any grounds for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction or in the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?
Whether the coordinate bench decisions showing leniency warrant modification of the sentence of imprisonment to a fine-only penalty for Section 304A offences?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna alias RajuDistinguished¶78
State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna alias Raju
State of Punjab Vs. Balwindar Singh and otherDistinguished¶84
State of Punjab Vs. Balwindar Singh and other
Coordinate Bench decision in Criminal Revision Petition No.1022/2011Distinguished¶39
Criminal Revision Petition No.1022/2011
Coordinate Bench decision in Criminal Revision Petition No.2075/2011Distinguished¶42
Criminal Revision Petition No.2075/2011
4 provisions across 2 enactments
V.M.MUNISWAMI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
