Allowed

S Mastan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023CRL.RP/471/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC heard a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and six-month sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. The High Court upheld the trial and appellate court's findings, rejecting claims of accidental intoxication and affirming the sentence against the professional driver.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of six months in C.C.No.125/2012 and Crl.A.No.188/2016 are hereby confirmed.

S Mastan Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.471 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. MASTAN S/O. LATE SYED THYMUR ALISHA KHADRI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.26, 1^ST STAGE AG BLOCK, N. R. MOHALLA MYSURU-570 007.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI TIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION MYSURU.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by VINUTHA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P.)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25.08.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.125/2012 AND JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.188/2016.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

Sri.Tippeswamy, for Sri. M.C. Basavaraju and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for respondent State.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.08.2016 passed by learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru and judgment dated 23.03.2017 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore in Crl.A.No.188/2016.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rankings before the trial Court. The revision petitioner is the 'accused' and the respondentState is the 'complainant'.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is as under:-

¶27

On 30.11.2011 on 4.30 p.m., the accused/driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09/F-3966 drove the same on Hebbal main road, near KRS road, in front of Oxford

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶30

school, at that time, PW-1 and the pillion rider came in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-09/EA-7953 from opposite direction and at that time, the accused/driver of KSRTC took bus to extreme right side of the road in an attempt to overtake a Goods Auto and in that process, hit the motor bike which was being driven by PW-1 with deceased Ramachari sitting pillion, as a result of the impact, PW-1 fell to the left side while the motor bike alongwith the deceased Ramachari fell on the right side of the road and the rear wheel of the bus ran over the head

¶31

of the deceased, due to which, he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Therefore, PW-1 lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1. Hence, a case has been registered and the IO investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304A IPC. Learned JMFC took cognisance of the offence and recorded the plea of the accused.

¶32

The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined in all eight witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8, got

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶35

marked eight documents as per Exs-P1 to P8 and based on the evidence, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304A IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused filed Crl.A.No.188/2016 and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the trial court as well as first appellate court, the accused preferred this petition contending that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have not considered the evidence of the prosecution

¶36

in right perspective and there is omissions and contradictions in the prosecution case.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶38

none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused. It is contended that the rider of the motor cycle and pillion rider were alcoholic at the time of the accident and they themselves caused the accident, but the IO in order to help the family members of deceased Ramachari

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶41

falsely implicated the accused. It is contended that the accused is aged '72' years and therefore, he may be acquitted instead of sentencing him to prison and hence, learned counsel submits that there is error on the face of record and thus prays to allow the petition.

¶42

Learned HCGP Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, appearing for the respondent-State submits that since the trial court and the appellate court have given concurrent findings and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of the accident, PW-1 and pillion rider(deceased) were alcoholic has no substance in view of the evidence given by the Doctor and therefore, interference by this Court is not necessary to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused. Hence, he justifies the judgment of the trial court as well as appellate court and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶43

On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the trial court relied on the oral testimony of PW-1,

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶46

who is the complainant and rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident. PW-2 and PW-5 are panch witnesses to Ex-P2, PW-3 is an eyewitness to the incident, PW-4 IMV Inspector and PW-8 IO. The trial court considering the evidence PW-1 to PW-8 convicted the accused. From the perusal of evidence of PW-1, it appears that he is an eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus, the accident in question occurred. On perusal of Ex-P2 spot mahazar and Ex-P8 spot sketch, it establishes that the

¶47

accused being the driver of KSRTC bus came towards extremely right side of the road in an attempt to overtake the goods auto and in that process, hit the motor bike which was being driven by PW-1 with deceased sitting pillion and as a result of the impact, PW-1 fell to the left side while the motor cycle alongwith deceased Ramachari fell on the right side of the road and the rear wheel of the

¶48

bus ran over the head of deceased Ramachari. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW-1 is supported by spot mahazar Ex-P2, Ex-P8 spot sketch which is also supported by the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶51

contents of Ex-P5 post mortem report. On perusal of the contents of Ex-P5, at page 2, the Doctor has clearly mentioned that on dissection of the stomach and its contents, it contains 300ml partially digested rice meal and the Doctor has not found alcohol contents in the abdomen of deceased Ramachari which falsifies the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of the accident, PW-1 and pillion rider were alcoholic. Further, as per the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death is due to head injury sustained as a result of blunt force impact, which shows that the accident in question is caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus and in that process, he caused the accident and the cause of death was due to accident caused by him.

¶52

As rightly pointed out by learned HCGP, this petition is filed against concurrent findings of the trial court as well as appellate court, as such, the scope of interference on the factual aspect is very limited. The

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶55

evidence on record shows that the petitioner has not disputed the occurrence of the accident, he also does not dispute the death of Ramachari and his identity before the trial court. The case of the accused was of total denial and all the witnesses have identified the accused, whereas, on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, who was rider of the motor cycle has categorically identified the accused. As per the evidence of PW7- Krishna Gowda, who was working as Traffic Inspector at the relevant point of time stated that on the day of the accident, the accused was driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09-F-3966. Therefore, now the accused cannot dispute his identity. Hence, there is no merit in the substance of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶56

Now, the question that arises for the consideration of this Court is:-

¶57

"Whether imposition of sentence is tenable.?'

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶59

the petitioner has no criminal antecedents nor had any

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶62

intention to cause the accident. Now the petitioner is a pensioner, aged about '70' years and hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶63

The trial court as well as the appellate court has imposed minimum sentence of six months for the offence under section 304 A IPC.

¶64

While dealing with the question "whether it is desirable to impose minimal or negligible sentence in a case of offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC", the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶65

GURU BASAVARAJ @ BENNE SETTAPPA vs STATE OF

¶66

KARNATAKA r eported in 2012(8) SCC 734 at Paras-19, 24, 26 and 29, held as under:

¶67

" 19. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, this Court expressed thus:

¶68

“Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶70

10 -

¶71

quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence.” Thereafter, the Court proceeded to highlight what is expected of a professional driver:

¶72

“A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.”

¶73

XXX XXX

¶74

24. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, it has been laid down that sentencing is an important task in relation to criminal justice dispensation system. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate,

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶77

adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. It has been further opined that the principle of proportionality in sentencing a crimedoer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, the proportion between crime and punishment bears the most relevant influence in the determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including the social interest and conscience of the society for award of appropriate sentence.

¶78

XXX XXX

¶79

26. From the aforesaid authorities, it is luminous that this Court has expressed its concern on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of commission of offences regard being had to the nature of the offence and demand of the conscience of the society. That apart, the concern has been to impose adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. It is worthy to note that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have been taken into consideration but the said aspect is dependent on the facts of each case. As the trend of authorities would show, the proficiency in professional driving is emphasized upon and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense

¶80

12 -

¶81

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶82

of fear prevails all around. The negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective. When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious, can have nightmarish effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section 357(3) with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence.

¶83

XXX XXX

¶84

29. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored. In Siriya alias Shri Lal v. State of M.P., it has been held as follows :-

¶85

“ Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of “order” should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his “Law in Changing Society”

¶86

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶87

stated that, “State of criminal law continues to be – as it should be – a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society”. Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.”

¶88

Further, in view of the ratio laid down by the

¶89

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GURU BASAVARAJ

¶90

@ BENNE SETTAPPA vs STATE OF

¶91

KARNATAKA r eported in 2012(8) SCC 734 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has imposed maximum imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the trial court as well as appellate court has rightly imposed sentence of six months against the accused, therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2023:KHC:43486 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2017

¶94

ORDER

¶95

The petition is allowed. Impugned judgment

¶96

dated passed in C.C.No.125/2012 by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mysuru and judgment dated 23.03.2017 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge at Mysuru in Crl.A.No.188/2016 are hereby confirmed.

¶97

Registry is directed to send the records to the trial court with a copy of this order, forthwith.

¶98

Sd/JUDGE

¶99

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

S Mastan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Mastan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

Thejas Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ananda Shetty Vs Smt. Nalini Ganesh

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Sampath @ Santhosh

State of Karnataka Vs Murali Bolar

Muddumadaiah Vs B Jyothi