Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Santram Mahadev Bane on 17 March, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
B.'?'.1"'.'u'EEN State of * = represented by Pu__ lie Belgaum. ' ' (By sr1H;e.eidtaaganga1anf j L ,H.e.e.i=.; AN D - e H _ iviajor, ie Vfllage', ' ' -|_.......n...: A.I--......a.... \ ( By $.S11u5I.11, nu uuuu.c. ; Appeal filed under Section 377 of the jiraying to set aside the judgment and enhance _ mane amount of'Rs.4,100/- imposed by the 111 Addl. ed I;_aS.0V5'.% Belgaum, in Grl.A.No. 3/ 1996, dated 24.9.2001 " v confirm the judgment of eonvictlon and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C., Chikkodi, in C.C.No. 37/1994 dated 28.12.1995 eonvictfmg the respondent-accused for F! 00 the offences pmtishabie under Seetien 279, 33:, 3.» IN) and 304-A of the I.P.C. and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. "'he S*°**' 1.. i. I. uuuu appellate court *jfiiif"-Fit' of the *..ri.=.=.l ....u. - only insofar as of the matter is concemed had sentenced the rigorous impsriaonment anu L" ff'§'_ yfijé die ""Re;2,Q0(.),I~ for the ofience |.-P pnniehablepip Section 304-}: aria'. to :.m..ergo n'.go1'o1is for one month and to pay a fine i €of*fRs."1.,Q0of-""ibr the offence punishable under Section or the oifences punishable under Sections 279 to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, the lower appellate c_1_1_rt, while confirming the conviction of the respondent for the aforesaid efiencee, modified the 'ix x L sentence from one of imprisonment fi to afine f RsA,1f.)0,l- i_11 IA m respect of the and thus, aggrieved 'I3 ' u1 Bud UU..I.l.IUfl.l.l. sfif txiuzf by the lower appellate coufi-, preferred. 2. The prosecution in' on 25.12.1992, at ahout 9g3o nespondent, being the driver No.KA--23/ 283, while so "-'dram it L- .s.a_ ra_h and negligent the '""er faiiing into a ditch road leading to the death of two' " (tries to several other persons. "ffea1"é'*«.._ptu'.iei'.able "mi-=-' Sections 2?'), -337, 3-38, I.P.C. and Section 134 of the the reepoirdezit was put on trial and the trial court, after on : eviderlce appreciation, convicted him for the aforesaid V "offences and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 3. Upon appeal to the lower appellate court by the 1e._m dent-accused, the learned judge of the lower l___.._ f\ &' an appellate court, alter recording the submission rnade on behalf d m.,. -..-_pr.1._¢.LA_.t ___1'ei_I1, and ..ecnidefion recorded by the court haviig rrt any objection being raised, __t.he_ 'lower' only heard on the question 4': sentence passed_ by ae tire t1'ialco111't..[;" so 4. decision of the tower aside the punishment of impeeenmeet the trial court, the State has J so t111eap;:ea1. V VA heard the learned Government Pleader for do Shri H.C.Sid and the learned 3" = . f}'3.Shastti and perused the material' ' on record. 6. The iearned Gu'"u'erm1"..ene . .ee...e., mlying en the decisions of the Apex Court reported in AF: 1?'? SC 861 and 2002 Crl.L.-J. 2020, submitted am the lower L 9/ mu 1" ;____?__e fill appellate court could not have modified the sentence by scam aside the punishment of at only euetainizm the hue 9.11-.oun. L':-.m@ J. and, in doing so, the lower appellate i--'1os._l':ept"*~- in View the law laid down at lceuxtllmetheleelnl aforesaid decisions. 7. On the for the respondent awarded by the lower sought to make "l:'.mte of the case by moms L- 03 :5 W '3 I "I #3 fl? 1' 3 9 I. ¥ I 3. 1" T 5 I B I put. fifll F I to n_:1entloned..at the very outset that, befome the lower ' Jfespondent has not questioned his conviction 'l A court and this is clear from the following obaer1?afi._ng -1' the lower appellate court at paragraph-5 V' "of its judgment: "-5. -111: l_._r.r1_d _____ml _or the appelkmt Sri R.G.Patil, fairly and very rlghtly submitted during the course of arguments a UK that he does not dispute the conviction recorded by the lower court. He finflter submitted that there is ample .. support the case of prosecution. fact that the accused pj I iiiiunr ' T11-nensfrnxaun ' I410 1.ll:I.l.l. U-I man ulalquaunsa '§'__\4|-|aI\_vI.n.I.u _a_. aura'.-nu-u.\ui.§".' eonviction _p has no grievance. obj_ecti.onsg » . , , .." 9. In off"'the'; ohsezvations, it is for Jespentjenttttto now argue on the As far as the sentence is = in the case of State of 4 113 D :7!!! '£3. 1 @Rq,'-a, rt-;.mr*..;-.d m AIR 1 that where it was found on t ipsthe reckless driving of the bus, death of one injuries to another was caused, the nu" mp'i.;\s_t;_n -1' the of fine only of Rs.250_l- on " the driver for the ofi'e"uce puni In nu. er s:I\.n..vuGIi 304--A and that too without any extenuating and mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of anyone and will unmistakably leaves the S} - y .__.r --J impression that the trial was mockery of justice and, by observing to the said efi'ect, the Apex the I.P.C. 4-:4 ,.: V A15 10. In another a; Kamataka Vs. Aragoudar, reported in 2002 Apex Court has observed" = not have meduced as-r th" sentfiicze for Sficn 304-A i:-tn the serious nature' of the accident that it may lead to unhealthy 4 ipreeedent 'theieutiordiziate courts. ' '-1 of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex is the case on hand, the sentence imposed by the coI..u't --r ah the otfences for which the respondent it been convicted ougfit "rt '" i*"ve b6'61": with by the lower appellate court without there being any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Thexefore, the State appeal has to be allowed and the Q'!- L/, '\ G5 sentence passed by the lower appellate court has to be _..t cutie by restoring that of me trial court. 12. In the result, I pass the following . M The State appeal is 1'. the lower air 'ilate eouu ti" %t andléyet cf Vt,;e.t.fiel court is restored. ' _ i The forthwith before the imposed upon trial court to take necessary in -r. back to the trial' ' -' court .....
l f$ 'fl: Iudgg