01Facts
On 6 November 2008, a lorry driven by the petitioner collided with a Mahindra pickup on the Dharwad–Saundatti Road. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner drove rashly and negligently, causing injuries and the eventual deaths of four occupants, and left the scene without reporting the accident
p. 4The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the appellate court affirmed the conviction
pp. 5–6In revision, the petitioner challenged the appreciation of evidence and sought acquittal, or alternatively a reduction in sentence
pp. 6–8, 12–1302Issues
i.Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision
p. 8ii.Whether the sentence imposed for the Section 304A IPC offence should be modified in view of the petitioner’s age and circumstances
pp. 12–1403Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
pp. 2–3The Court considered the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act
pp. 2–3Section 304A IPC provides that causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both; the Court treated the provision as allowing discretion in selecting the sentence
p. 13Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 397Section 401Section 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279Section 337Section 338
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 134Section 187
04Reasoning
The Court found that the evidence, including that of occupants of the pickup who testified to the lorry driver’s rash and negligent driving, had been properly assessed by both lower courts
pp. 9–12It rejected the contention that the pickup’s alleged excess passengers absolved the petitioner of negligence, and held that the petitioner had not shown that the concurrent findings were improperly reached
pp. 11–12On sentence, however, it relied on the discretion under Section 304A IPC and the petitioner’s age at the time of the accident, stated to be 23, to reduce the imprisonment imposed for that offence
pp. 12–1405Holding
The revision petition was partly allowed.
pp. 14–15The conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was affirmed
pp. 14–15The Section 304A sentence was modified to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default; the sentences for the other offences were retained, and all terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently
pp. 15–16The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pay the fine
p. 16Original Court PDF
MANJUNATH S/O IRAPPA KAJJIDONIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
