Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka, vs Altafsab Hasanasab, on 19 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.A.No.100291/2016
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100291/2016
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
HONNAVAR POLICE STATION,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
AND:
ALTAFSAB HASANASAB,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR OF ANJUMAN
ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
R/O: TONKA, KASARAKOD,
HONNAVAR TALUK.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S S YADRAMI, ADVOCATE)
---
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &
(3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 08.06.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC, HONNAVAR IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO.207 OF 2015 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304A OF IPC.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016
:2:
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Court of JMFC, Honnavar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below', for brevity), in C.C.No.207/2015, acquitting the present respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC.
2. In its memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that, PW1 and PW2 are the eyewitnesses, who have specifically stated about the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent/accused on the relevant date of accident. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their true version. The accused has not denied the place, date and time of accident. The defence of the accused that the accident in question has occurred only due to the mistake of deceased himself is not CRL.A.No.100291/2016 :3: acceptable. It is further contended in the memorandum of appeal that, the Court below has not noticed the fact that there are no break marks found in the spot as shown in Ex.P2 or Ex.P3, as such, the rider of the motorcycle had dashed the deceased without applying the break even when he approached the deceased.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent is being represented by his counsel. Lower Court records are called for and the same are placed before this Court. Even though this matter was listed for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter was taken up for final disposal.
4. Considering the grounds raised by the appellant in its memorandum of appeal, it is noticed that the appellant has raised some important grounds, which requires a detailed consideration, as such the matter stands admitted. Leave granted to the appellant to prefer this appeal.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016:4:
5. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Court below is that, on 07.01.2015 at about 8.00 am, the respondent /accused was driving his new motorcycle Bajaj Pulser without any number plate, in a rash and negligent manner from Honnavar side towards Kumata and near Karki Naka dashed to deceased Krishnagouda, who was going along with his son Ravi Krishnagouda and also Basha Razak Sab, pillion rider of his motorcycle, causing grievous injuries to them. The said Krishnagouda succumbed to the injuries while on the way to the hospital at Honnavar. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 348 and 304A of IPC.
The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 348 and 304A of IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the alleged guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8 and through them got marked documents from Exs. P1 to P12-a and closed its CRL.A.No.100291/2016 :5: side. From the accused side, in the cross-examination of PW2, a portion of the statement was marked at Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. A photograph was marked as Ex.C1.
After hearing both sides, the Court below in its judgment dated 08.06.2016, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted him from all the alleged offences. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned HCGP appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused, and after perusal of the materials placed before this Court, including the impugned judgment and entire lower Court records, the following points arise for my consideration:
i. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 07.01.2015 at about 8.00 am on Honnavar-Kumta road near Karki Naka, the present respondent ridden his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased Krishnagouda, who was CRL.A.No.100291/2016 :6: pedestrian there and thereby has committed an offence under Section 279 of IPC? ii. On the date, time and place mentioned in point No.1 above, whether the accused has caused grievous injuries to PW6 - Basha Razak Sab, the pillion rider in his motorcycle and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC?
iii. Whether due to the accident occurred on the date, time and place mentioned at point No.1 above, and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the injured Krishnagouda succumbed to it and thereby the respondent/accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC?
iv. Whether the judgment of acquittal passed
by the Court below deserves any
interference at the hands of this Court?
v. What order?
Since all these four points are interrelated with each other, in order to avoid repetition in analysis all these four points are taken up together for analysis.CRL.A.No.100291/2016 :7:
7. Among the eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in the Court below, PW1 - Ravi Krishna Gouda is the complainant in the case. The said witness in his evidence in examination-in-chief has stated that, the deceased Krishnagouda is his father. On 07.01.2015 at about 7.30 am to 8.00 am, both of them left their motorcycle at Regional Transport Officer's office ('RTO's office' for short) for the purpose of its registration and both of them were walking from RTO's office towards Karki Naka. At that time, a motorcycle came from Honnavar side carrying its rider and a pillion rider. The said rider was riding his motorcycle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said rash and negligent driving, the said motorcycle came and dashed to his father Krishnagouda, due to which his father fell on the road sustaining grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body. CW2 and CW6, who were there in the spot, summoned 108 Ambulance vehicle to the spot, wherein the injured was shifted to Shridevi Hospital. After examining the injured, the doctor referred the patient to Manipal CRL.A.No.100291/2016 :8: Hospital. While the injured was being shifted in the Ambulance, he succumbed to the injuries on the way.
8. PW1 - Ravi Krishnagouda specifically stated that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. He has identified the accused in the Court stating that he has lodged the complaint with the police in that regard. The witness has identified his complaint at Ex.P1. He has also shown the place of the offence to the police and the panchas who drew the scene of offence panchanama in the spot as per Ex.P2. He has also identified the sketch of the spot of the accident at Ex.P3. The witnesses has further stated that the pillion rider of the offending motorcycle also fell down in the accident and he too has sustained some injuries.
This witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination from the accused side, wherein he adhered to his original version.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016:9:
9. PW2 - Ganapati Maru Gouda was examined by the prosecution projecting him as eyewitness to the incident. The said witness has stated in his evidence that, on 07.01.2015 at about 7.45 am, in order to go to Honnavar, he was near Karki Naka talking with CW3 and CW6. At that time, CW1 - Ravi Krishnagouda came along with his father and parked his vehicle near RTO's office and was coming by walk near Karki Naka. At that time, the motorcycle being ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and coming from Honnavar side came and dashed to the father of CW1, due to which accident the father of CW1 fell on the road. These people rushed to the spot and noticed that the father of CW1 had sustained injuries to his head and limbs. Then, 108 Ambulance was summoned, in which the injured was taken to Shridevi Hospital. At the advice of the doctor, the injured was being shifted to Manipal Hospital in the Ambulance, however the injured was succumbed to the injuries on the way.
The witness has categorically stated that the said accident had occurred on that day in the morning between 8.00 am and CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 10 : 8.10 am merely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. He also stated that the said motorcycle was also carrying a pillion rider, who also sustained some injury in the accident. The witness has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to the fault of the rider of the motorcycle. This witness also identified the accused in the Court. He has also stated that he too has shown the place of the incident to the police, wherein the police have drawn a scene of offence panchanama and a spot sketch as per Exs.P2 and P3.
This witness also was subjected to a detailed cross- examination from the accused side, wherein it was tried to elicit from the witness that his presence on the said place of accident at the time of accident was not probable. However, the witness adhered to his previous version that he was an eyewitness to the accident.
10. PW3 - Ramachandra Juttugouda in his evidence has stated that, he was a pancha for the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P2 and also the inquest panchanama which is at Ex.P4.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016: 11 :
11. PW4 - Amit Govindgouda in his evidence has stated that he was an eyewitness to the alleged incident. He has seen the rider of the motorcycle coming in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Krishnagouda, the father of CW1. He also has stated that the pillion rider in the said motorcycle also sustained injuries. Since he was not fully supporting the case of the prosecution to the expected extent, he was treated as partially hostile by the Court below and the prosecution was permitted to cross- examine him.
In his cross-examination, he admitted a suggestion made to him by the prosecution that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the said Krishnagouda succumbed to it while being shifted to the hospital. This witness also was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side, wherein the witness has stated that, on the date of accident, he had not been to Honnavar and his statements made earlier were all hearsay statements.
12. PW5 - Venkataraman Bhairugouda, though was projected by the prosecution as another eyewitness to the CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 12 : incident, has not supported its case. Even after treating him hostile, the prosecution could not elicit any favourable statement from him.
13. P.W.6 - Basha Razak Sab has stated that he know the accused on the date of accident. He was a pillion rider in the motorcycle, which was being ridden by the accused. At about 7.30 am, near Karki Naka RTO's office, a person was passing the road and he was almost in the middle of the road, to whom the motorcycle, in which these people were traveling dashed; due to the said accident, he fell down and lost his conscious; he does not know what happened thereafter. He has stated that, in the said accident he sustained injuries to his eyes and limbs and was treated in St.Ignetious Hospital. However, he came to know subsequently that the person to whom their motorcycle had dashed died subsequently. The witness further stated that, on the said day, the accused was riding the vehicle, however, he was slow in riding and the accident has occurred due to the fault of the deceased. Since this witness stated that the accident has occurred due to the CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 13 : fault of the deceased, at the request of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution.
In the said cross-examination, he did not admit the denial suggestions regarding the manner of accident, which was suggested to him by the prosecution. In his cross- examination, one single sentence statement was elicited, wherein the witness has admitted that at the time of accident deceased was crossing the road.
14. P.W.7-Ganesh is the first Investigating Officer in this matter who has stated about he receiving the complaint from CW1 on 07.01.2015 and submitted the FIR to the Court.
P.W.8 - Parameshwar, the main Investigating Officer in this case has given a detailed account of the investigation said to have been conducted by him in this case. He has spoken about he receiving information about the occurrence of the accident on 07.01.2015 and after taking up further investigation in this matter, he drawing inquest panchanama in the presence of panchas regarding the statement of the several witnesses CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 14 : drawing a scene of offence panchanama and getting the motorcycle examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and handing over further investigation to C.W.16. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross-examination were not admitted as true by this witness.
15. From an analysis of the prosecution witnesses, the summary of which is elicited above, it is clear that, nowhere the accused have denied the occurrence of the accident on the alleged date, time and place. However, the only denial or a defence is that the accident in question has occurred solely due to the alleged fault of the deceased. It is on this aspect, the learned Government Pleader in his argument vehemently submitted that, when no suggestions to any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner was made from the accused side disputing the place of accident, the finding given by the Court below to the effect that the place of accident was not established was erroneous.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent/accused in his argument submitted that, even CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 15 : though no suggestion to any of the prosecution witnesses has been made denying the place of accident, however, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accident has occurred in the place as alleged by it.
17. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident have stated that the accident in question has occurred on Kumta- Honnavar road near Karkinaka, which is at walk away distance from RTO office. Among these, P.W.1 claims himself to be the son of the deceased and was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident. The said aspect that he was son of the deceased and was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident has not been specifically denied in his cross-examination. As such, his presence at the time of the accident in the spot can be believed. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he has shown the place of accident to the police in the afternoon between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. where the police drew a panchanama and he has also stated that the police also CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 16 : drew a sketch which he has identified as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively.
P.W.2 also has deposed to the same effect with respect to the place of accident. He also has stated that he was standing near the place talking to C.W.3 and C.W.6 and at that time, he noticed that the accident has occurred, which was on Karkinaka on Kumta-Honnavar road. He has also identified scene of offence panchanama stating that he too has shown the place along with P.W.1 to the police.
Even though, P.W.4 also claims himself to be an eye- witness to the accident and has stated about the place of accident, however, his statement made in the cross- examination that on the date of accident, he had not been to Honnavar and that he was working under P.W.1 and also that what he has stated earlier in his evidence were all tutored to him, makes his evidence not trustworthy to believe. As such, it is only based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the place of alleged accident and the manner of occurrence of the accident has to be assessed.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016: 17 :
Ex.P2-scene of offence panchanama regarding drawing of which, P.W.3 has supported, shows that the place of incident was on the National Highway No.66 running North-South, which highway on the side where the accident has occurred was of 28 feet in its width with the distance of 5 feet from the road side on the eastern side and 23 feet from the spot of the accident on the western side. In the spot, there was marks of bloodstain and nearby to that place, the alleged offending motorcycle was also parked. The said motorcycle was without any registration number plate, but its chassis number and engine number were identified and shown in the scene of offence panchanama.
No doubt P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, at the time of the accident, they were walking on the kachha road and the motorcycle dashed to his father. PW1 who has stated about the place of accident and has stated that he has shown the said place to the police at the time of drawing of panchanama, in his cross-examination, has made a statement that he has not shown the spot shown in CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 18 : the sketch at Ex.P3 to the police. It is on this single stray statement of the witness, the Court below jumped to a conclusion that his evidence to the effect that he has shown the place of accident to the police is not believable and more particularly regarding spot of the accident, it raises a suspicion in the mind of the Court.
The said reasoning of the Court below was reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondent in his argument also. However, a careful reading of the said statement of P.W.1 in his cross-examination gives a different meaning than what the Court below has interpreted it and what learned counsel for the respondent has canvassed. A careful reading of the said statement, which in its English translation reads as below:
"I have not shown that the spot which is shown in Ex.P3 sketch as the spot of accident."
18. A comparative study of scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2 and the sketch said to have been drawn by the Investigating Officer, which is at Ex.P3 clearly go to show that, in the scene of offence panchanama, the CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 19 : width of road on which the accident has occurred is shown at 28 feet, in which, from exact spot of the accident on the eastern side road, the width was 5 feet and on a western side, the width was 23 feet. In the sketch at Ex.P3, the said spot has been shifted to opposite side, i.e., from east, it has gone to west and from west, it has gone to east.
19. Thus, making the distance between the spot to the western side as 5 feet and from the spot to the eastern edge of the road at 23 feet, which is diagonally opposite to what is stated in Panchanama. As such, the panchanama prevails which is corroborated by the evidence of panchas so also the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is for the said reason, P.W.1 has stated that he has not shown that spot as shown in Ex.P.3 as the place of accident. That is the correct statement made by P.W.1 for the reason that according to him, the exact description of the spot of the accident is in Ex.P.2. It is for the said reason the said witness in his very same cross-examination immediately after the above extracted sentence has also stated as below: CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 20 :
"Panchanama has been drawn as stated by me to the police. I have read out the panchanama and signed it".
This statement makes his previous statement more clear that the contents of panchanama are true and it is written as shown and stated by him, whereas the spot shown in Ex.P3 was not the one shown by him. It is this difference, the Court below did not notice and the same lead it to land up in an erroneous finding that there was contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 with respect to the spot of incident. The grave mistake committed by the Investigating Officer in drawing the sketch of the place of the offence at Ex.P3 was thus remained unnoticed by the Court below which also was projected as the sketch is prefect in all aspects, by the learned counsel for the respondent herein. As such, the said finding of the Court below as well the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent herein on the point that the spot was not properly proved is not acceptable.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016: 21 :
20. The above finding that the place of the offence has been properly stated by P.W.1 also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6. Undisputedly, said witness was a pillion rider of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and he was also a known person to the accused. As such, the accused was taking him as a pillion rider in his motorcycle at the time of accident. The said witness also has not denied either the occurrence of the accident or the place of the accident. In fact he has himself stated in his examination-in-chief about the occurrence of the accident. The motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider dashing to Krishnagouda, the deceased and the said Krishnagouda sustaining injuries and falling on the road. P.W.6 has also stated that he too sustained injuries in the said accident as he also fell down from the motorcycle. Thus, the evidence of none else than the pillion rider of the offending vehicle also shows and speaks about the spot of the accident and the occurrence of the accident. His only statement which is not favourable to the prosecution is that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 22 : Krishnagouda. However, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 go to show that Krishnagouda was a pedestrian and walking along with his son i.e., P.W.1 Ravi Krishnagouda. Secondly, P.W.2 has also stated that the deceased Krishnagouda was walking and the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner.
21. While appreciating the evidence of P.W.2, the Court below has made an observation that, when he claims that he was doing centering work and collect all the materials of centering work and on the date of the accident also, there was centering work and work of putting slab (putting concrete in a construction). However, in order to get a vibrator machine he had been to Honnavar on that day. Merely because the said witness in his cross- examination has admitted that normally at the time of doing the centering work and putting slab, they would collect all the materials, the Court below jumped to a conclusion that on the alleged date of accident also the vibrator machine was available with P.W.2 at the place of his work, as such, there was no necessity for him to come CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 23 : to Honnavar. While coming to such a conclusion, the Court below ignored the fact that nowhere the witness was suggested from the defence side with any suggestion that on the alleged date of accident also, all the equipments including the vibrator machine was available with him. Similarly, P.W.2 also has nowhere stated in his evidence that on the date of the accident also all the equipments including the vibrator was available with him in the spot. Merely because normally a person possesses, does not necessarily mean that on the date of the accident also he was possessing it, when the very same witness has stated in the very same evidence that on the said day, he had been to Honnavar to get a vibrator machine. This erroneous interpretation of the evidence of P.W.2 also has lead the Court below to say that an element of suspicion has crept in the case of the prosecution. However, as observed above, the appreciation of the evidence of P.W.2 makes it very clear that on the particular day he had been to Honnavar to get a vibrator machine, as such, his presence in the place of the accident was probable by all means.
CRL.A.No.100291/2016: 24 :
22. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 joined by P.W.2 makes it abundantly clear that they were the eyewitnesses to the alleged accident. The said evidence corroborated the evidence of none else than P.W.6, the pillion rider in the offending vehicle makes it clear that the accident has occurred on the date, time and place, as alleged in the charge sheet. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the rider of the motorcycle was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner evidences that the rider of the motorcycle had not taken the required care and caution while riding the motorcycle. P.W.6 though has stated that the accident has occurred due to the fault of the deceased Krishnagouda, but it cannot be ignored of the fact that the deceased was aged 77 years. As such, he cannot be expected to rush on the road from the side of a road with high speed. His age prevents him from running or rushing on to the road. At the maximum he can be expected to walk that too a bit slowly. That being the case, any rider or driver of the motorcycle is expected to see any man or animal crossing the road or walking near the road and be CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 25 : cautious and careful in riding or driving of the vehicle. In the instant case, it is not the deceased alone, he was accompanied by P.W.1, his son. Thus, when two persons were there either on the road or on the side of the road, a prudent and the reasonable rider of the motorcycle was expected to be more cautious in negotiating the said place. On the other hand, the very picture of the accident as depicted by P.W.1, P.W.2 corroborated by Ex.P2 makes it abundantly clear that the accident in question not only has occurred on the date, time and place shown in the charge sheet, but solely due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider.
23. It is not in dispute that in the said accident, deceased Krishnagouda sustained injuries and succumbed to it. The document at Ex.P4, which is Inquest Panchanama and the Postmortem Report at Ex.P8 corroborates the same. The Motor Vehicle Report at Ex.P9 shows that due to the accident, even the motorcycle which caused the accident by its rash driving by the accused also sustained few damages on its front side. Thus, it is clearly CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 26 : established that in the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, Krishnagouda sustained injuries and succumbed to it. The wound certificate at Ex.P7 corroborates the evidence of P.W.6, the pillion rider that in the said accident he also sustained injuries. The wound certificate shows that in the accident P.W.6 - Basha Razak Sab sustained following injuries;
1. Nasal bone fracture of upper eyelid cut wound.
2. Left Hemosinus with periorbital soft tissue swelling
3. head injury.
The doctor has opined that among above the three injuries, injury No.1 and 3 were grievous in nature and injury No.2 was simple in nature. The said document has remained undisputed. The evidence of Investigating Officer corroborates about he conducting investigation in the case and collecting these documents which are marked at exhibits including the wound certificate and postmortem report. Thus, it is established that in the accident, P.W.6 sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, it is clearly proved by the prosecution that the accident in question was CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 27 : caused due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the present respondent/accused, in which accident, P.W.6 sustained grievous injuries and Krishnagouda sustained injuries and succumbed to it. These aspects have not been properly appreciated by the Court below. On the contrary, as observed above, it was carried away with a wrong interpretation of the stray sentence and stray admission by P.W.1, on general statement, which has lead him to pass an erroneous judgment. Since it is established that the prosecution has proved its case, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below deserves interference at the hands of this Court.
24. Accordingly, I answer point No.1, 2, 3 and 4 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The judgment of acquittal dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Learned JMFC in C.C.No.207/2015 is set aside. CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 28 :
The respondent-accused Altafsab Hasanasab is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab/MBS
CRL.A.No.100291/2016
: 29 :
HEARING ON SENTENCE
Heard the learned counsel for the
respondent/accused on sentence.
Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the respondent is a family person having dependents on his income, as such, lenient view be taken regarding the sentence.
Learned Government Pleader submits that considering the nature and circumstances of the case, maximum punishment for alleged offences be ordered.
It is a settled principle of law that the sentence must be proportionate to the offence committed by the accused. It shall neither be excessive nor for the name sake. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER ON SENTENCE.
The respondent/accused Altafsab Hasanasab is sentenced to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.CRL.A.No.100291/2016 : 30 :
The respondent/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of three months.
The respondent/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of three months.
All the sentence shall run concurrently. The period of judicial custody, if any, undergone by the accused be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Registry to transmit the copy of this judgment along with lower Court records immediately to the Court below for further action in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/MBS