Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 407 of 2002
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHARANAPPA BASANAGOUDA AREGOUDAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2002
BENCH:
R.P. Sethi & K.G. Balakrishnan
JUDGMENT:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Karnataka against sentence
imposed on the respondent on the ground of its inadequacy. The respondent
was 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
months’ imprisonment on the respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 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 the
impugned judgment the learned Single Judge confirmed the conviction of the
respondent on the three counts, but as regards the offence punishable under
Section 304A, the sentence was reduced to payment of a fine of Rs.5,000/- and
in default thereof, the respondent was to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months. The learned Judge had chosen to impose a sentence for the offence
under Section 337 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to simple imprisonment
for 15 days; and for the offence under Section 338 IPC with a fine of Rs.550/-, in
default to simple imprisonment for 15 days. No separate sentence was awarded
for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the
appellant-State contended that this is a case where the respondent was found
guilty of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of four persons
and injury to one person. The learned Single Judge, it was submitted,
was unduly lenient by awarding a light sentence to the respondent. It was
submitted that this has caused a serious miscarriage of justice and,
therefore, the impugned judgment be altered by awarding appropriate sentence
on the respondent.
For the purpose of this case, we would very briefly narrate
the facts.
One Dr. Venkatesh Kanakareddy, along with members of his family
proceeded to Mysore in a car from his native village Mahalingapur on 3.8.1991 to
visit his son who was studying there. PW-2, who was working as a Compounder
in his nursing home, also accompanied Dr. Venkatesh Kanakareddy. They
spent 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 place
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
called Todas Cross near Hubli. The car driven by Dr. Venkatesh
had a head-on collision with a mini lorry No. KA 25-1040 driven by the
respondent-accused. As a result of the collision, the right front wheel of the
car burst and the driver of the car lost control of the vehicle and it dashed against
a nearby tree. Dr. Venkatesh Kanakareddy, his wife and another occupant of
the car died on the spot and one person was injured. The injured was removed
to the nearby hospital, but he also succumbed to his injuries later on. The trial
Magistrate and the appellate court found the respondent guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC based on the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. In Revision, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court also confirmed the conviction of the respondent, but modified the
sentence, for which the reasons recorded in paragraph 2 of his
judgment are as under:
"From the evidence, it is apparent that due to bursting of the
front tyre, the car went to right side of the road and that is how the
collision took place. While to this extent the petitioner could be said
to be innocent and while that aspect of innocence could certainly
influence the decision relating to sentence, I am of the opinion that
the accident having taken place at 7.00 a.m., with no other vehicles
being on the road and when it is as wide a road as of 40 feet width
totally, the negligence on the part of the petitioner lies in the fact
that he did not make any efforts to avoid the collision. It is for this
reason that I would conclude that the petitioner has rightly been
convicted of the offences. However, in the circumstances, this is
not a case wherein the petitioner should be sent to jail as has been
done by the learned Magistrate and as affirmed by the learned
Sessions Judge."
It may be noted here that the respondent had raised a plea before the
learned Magistrate as well as before the appellate court that the accident might
have occurred due to the bursting of the right front tyre of the car as a result of
which 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 appellate
court. A suggestion to this effect was put to the Motor Vehicles Inspector who
had examined the vehicle after the accident. However, the Inspector also
declined the suggestion that the accident might have occurred as a result of
bursting of the tyre and he opined that the tyre would have burst due to the
collision between the two vehicles. The possibility of the car having
gone to the extreme right side is also ruled out by the evidence. The
observation made by the Revisional court is not based on the evidence on
record.
We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of the
accident, which resulted in the death of four persons, the learned Single Judge
should not have interfered with the sentence imposed by the court below. It may
create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the
subordinate courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. If
the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on
guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The
sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential
wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
Of course, the Courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to
take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for
fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due
regard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of
sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal
justice system.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to interfere
with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hold that the respondent is
liable to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate and affirmed by
the appellate court. Consequently, we direct that for the offence punishable
under Section 304A, the respondent be taken into custody to undergo a simple
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
imprisonment for six months. As regards offences under Section 279, 337
and 338 IPC, no separate sentence has been awarded by the trial Magistrate.
The direction of the trial Magistrate is maintained.
The appeal would stand allowed accordingly.
J
[ R.P. Sethi ]
J
[ K.G. Balakrishnan ]
March 21, 2002.