Partly allowed

M Rajuram v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024CRL.RP/280/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC confirmed on appeal. Conviction maintained but sentence reduced from two years to one year with fine enhanced to ₹25,000 payable as compensation to the deceased's parents, no special reasons having been recorded for maximum punishment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from two years to one year; conviction maintained; fine enhanced to ₹25,000 payable to deceased's parents; time till 25.07.2024 to pay fine and surrender.

M Rajuram Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24257 CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.280 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M RAJURAM S/O MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, SUBHASH NAGAR T C PALYA MAIN ROAD, BHATTARAHALLI BENGALURU-560049

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITEFIELD POLICE BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.01.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND 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.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:24257 CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri K.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government pleader

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24257 CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021

¶24

petitioner in reducing the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

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 .

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:24257 CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

In paragraph 14, the learned trial Magistrate has stated that accused ran away from the spot and therefore he is not

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:24257 CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021

¶38

entitled to any mercy. But that may not be the special reason to award maximum punishment.

¶39

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.

¶40

13. Accordingly, the following.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Revision Petition is allowed in part .

¶43

(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

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:24257 CRL.RP No. 280 of 2021

¶46

the learned Trial Magistrate, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶47

(iii) Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.

¶48

(iv) Time is granted to the accused to pay the fine amount and to surrender for serving the remaining part of the imprisonment till 25^th July, 2024.

¶49

(v) Office is directed to return the trial court records with copy of this order, forthwith.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

M Rajuram v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Rajuram 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

Ramanna Vs Sumalatha

Mr. S S Ananthakrishna Vs Mr Vishwasa K L

Sokkara Chandrappa Vs Anandappa B S

M S Nagaraj Vs Dhathathriya Batta

Sri v Govinda Vs Sri Radhakrishna M S

Sri Sannaswamy Vs the State by