State of Karnataka vs Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—Leave granted.

This appeal is preferred by the State of Karnataka against sentenceimposed on the respondent on the ground of its inadequacy. The respondentwas found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate imposed a sentence of six month's imprisonment on the respondent for the offence punishable underSection 304A IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC. The respondent filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, but the appellate court declined to interfere therewith.The respondent thereafter filed a Revision before the High Court and by theimpugned judgment the learned Single Judge confirmed the conviction of therespondent on the three counts, but as regards the offence punishable underSection 304A, the sentence was reduced to payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- andin default thereof, the respondent was to undergo simple imprisonment for threemonths. The learned Judge had chosen to impose a sentence for the offenceunder Section 337 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to simple imprisonmentfor 15 days; and for the offence u/s 338 IPC with a fine of Rs. 550/-, indefault to simple imprisonment for 15 days. No separate sentence was awardedfor the offence punishable u/s 279 IPC.

We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for theappellant-State contended that this is a case where the respondent was foundguilty of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of four personsand injury to one person. The learned Single Judge, it was submitted,was unduly lenient by awarding a light sentence to the respondent. It wassubmitted that this has caused a serious miscarriage of justice and,therefore, the impugned judgment be altered by awarding appropriate sentenceon the respondent.

For the purpose or this case, we would very briefly narratethe facts.

One Dr. Venkatesh Kanakareddy, along with members of his familyproceeded to Mysore in a car from his native village Mahalingapur on 3.8.1991 tovisit his son who was studying there. PW-2, who was working as a Compounderin his nursing home, also accompanied Dr. Venkatesh Kanakareddy. Theyspent the night of 3.8.1991 at Mysore and at 8.00 PM on 4.8.1991 left Mysore.By about 7.30 AM on the next day, i.e. 5.8.1991, they reached a placecalled Toadas Cross near Hubli. The car driven by Dr. Venkateshhad a head-on collision with a mini lorry No. KA 25-1040 driven by therespondent-accused. As a result of the collision, the right from wheel of thecar burst and the driver of the car lost control of the vehicle and it dashed againsta nearby tree. Dr. Venkatesh Kanakareddy, his wife and another occupant ofthe car died on the spot and one person was injured. The injured was removedto the nearby hospital but he also succumbed to his injuries later on. The trialMagistrate and the appellate court found the respondent guilty of offencespunishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC based on the evidenceadduced by the prosecution,. In Revision, the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court also confirmed the conviction of the respondent, but modified thesentence, for which the reasons recorded in paragraph 2 of hisjudgment are as under:

"For the evidence, it is apparent that due to bursting of thefront tyre, the car went to right side of the road and that is how thecollision took place. While to this extent the petitioner could be saidto be innocent and while that aspect of innocence could certainlyinfluence the decision relating to sentence, I am of the opinion thatthe accident having taken place at 7.00 a.m., with no other vehiclesbeing on the road and when it is as wide a road as of 40 feet widthtotally, the negligence on the part of the petitioner lies in the factthat he did not make any efforts to avoid the collision. It is for thisreason that I would conclude that the petitioner has rightly beenconvicted of the offences. However, in the circumstances, this isnot a case wherein the petitioner should be sent to jail as has beendone by the learned Magistrate and as affirmed by the learnedSessions Judge."

It may be noted here that the respondent had raised a plea before thelearned Magistrate as well as before the appellate court that the accident mighthave occurred due to the bursting of the right front tyre of the car as a result ofwhich the car went to the right side of the road and dashed against the lorry.But this plea was not accepted by the trial court as well as the appellatecourt. A suggestion to this effect was put to the Motor Vehicles Inspector whohad examined the vehicle after the accident. However, the Inspector alsodeclined the suggestion that the accident might have occurred as a result ofbursting of the tyre and he opined that the tyre would have burst due to thecollision between the two vehicles. The possibility of the car havinggone to the extreme right side is also ruled out by the evidence. Theobservation made by the Revisional court is not based on the evidence onrecord.

We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of theaccident, which resulted in the death of four persons, the learned Single Judgeshould not have interfered with the sentence imposed by the court below. It maycreate and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to thesubordinate courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. Ifthe accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be onguard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. Thesentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potentialwrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.Of course, the Courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence totake stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant forfixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with dueregard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing ofsentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminaljustice system.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to interferewith the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hold that the respondent isliable to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate and affirmed bythe appellate court. Consequently, we direct that for the offence punishableunder Section 304A, the respondent be taken into custody to undergo a simpleimprisonment for six months. As regards offences u/s 279, 337and 338 IPC, no separate sentence has been awarded by the trial Magistrate.The direction of the trial Magistrate is maintained.