State of Karnataka vs Basavaraj Siddappa Jadhav

V. Jagannathan, J.—Aggrieved by the lower appellate court interfering with the sentence passed by the trial court on the respondent, in respect of the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C., this appeal has been preferred by the State.

The learned Government Pleader Shri Siddagangaiah for the appellant-State, at the outset, submitted that the trial court had convicted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a line of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of line, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 279 of the I.P.C. and in respect of the offence punishable u/s 337 of the I.P.C. the respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of line, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and as regards the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C. is concerned, the trial court, upon conviction of the accused, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court in respect of all the aforesaid offences and the only change brought about by the Iowa appellate court was in respect of the sentence passed for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C. inasmuch as the lower appellate court, while maintaining the fine imposed upon the respondent, modified the substantive sentence of six months R.I. to 28 days S.I. and the said period was set oil against the custodial period by taking the aid of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the lower appellate court interfering with the sentence of six months R.I. imposed by the court, the State has come up in appeal.

Since both the courts below have sustained the conviction of the respondent in respect of the offences with which he was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the I.P.C. iii connection with the respondent having driven the vehicle CTW-5234 on 6.4.1991 in a lash and negligent manner and (sic) against a hillock on the right side of the road and thereby 25 passengers, who were in the vehicle driven by the accused, sustained injuries apart from the mother of the bride-groom also succumbing to the injuries later in the hospital, it is not necessary to go into the said aspect of the matter in view of the lower appellate court continuing the conviction of the respondent for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the only focus will be with regard to the interference by the lower appellate court as far as the sentence of six months imposed upon the respondent-accused for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C.

The submission made by the learned Government Pleader for the State is that, though the ferial court had sentenced the respondent to six months imprisonment in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/-, the lower appellate court could not have modified the substantive sentence by only retaining the fine amount and reducing the substantive sentence only to 28 days imprisonment. In support of the above submission, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna alias Raju, and State of Karnataka Vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar,

On behalf of the respondent-accused, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appealing for him that the judgment of the lower appellate court requires no interference.

In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna alias Raju, , the Apex Court held that it was not proper on the part of the High Court not to have enhanced the sentence of fine when the driver was convicted for killing one person and injuring another.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the flea bite sentence imposed by the trial court, the Apex Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, enhanced the sentence for conviction u/s 304A of the I.P.C to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

In another decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar, the Apex Court held that the High Court, in revision, could not leave reduced the sentence u/s 304A into fine and also noted that interference with the sentence by the revisional court is not proper and it may set unhealthy precedent to the subordinate councils and accordingly, the Apex Court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C.

Having regard to the above decisions and in the instant case the trial court also having found on evidence that several passengers, who were in the lorry driven by the accused, sustained simple injuries, and the wound certificates having been produced as per Ex.P-8 to P-23 in respect of the injured persons and Anther, one Chandamma, mother of the bridegroom, also sustaining serious injuries leading to her death and P.M. report also having been produced as per Ex.P-24, I am of the opinion that the respondent-accused, therefore, requires to be punished adequately in order to secure the ends of justice and also to give a message to the other drivers to be more careful while driving the vehicles particularly when carrying large number of persons like a marriage party and, therefore, it is for these reasons, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C. will have to be maintained and should not have been interfered with by the lower appellate court without any adequate reasons to justify the reduction.

In the result, I pass the following order:

The State appeal is allowed.

The judgment of the lower appellate court insofar as reducing the sentence to 28 days of imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C. is concerned, the same is set aside and instead, the sentence of six months imposed by trial court stands restored and so also the fine amount imposed by both the courts below for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the I.P.C. As regards the rest of the offences are concerned, as the lower appellate court has not interfered with the sentence passed, no further modification is required in this appeal.

The respondent shall surrender forthwith before the trial court to undergo the sentence imposed upon him and steps shall be taken by the trial court also to secure the presence of the accused for compliance of the order now passed by restoring the sentence of six months passed by the trial court

In view of the sentence passed by the trial court being restored, the respondent is, however, entitled to set off as per Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the custodial period undergone by him.

A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the trial court forthwith for compliance.