Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 127 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Krishna Bhima Walvakar & Anr on 7 May, 1981

State vs . Bhima on 7 December, 2012

15. Furthermore, in their testimony, PW2 HC Samunder Singh as well as PW3 HC Amar Singh , PW5 Ct. Bharat Bhushan have stated that the alleged arrest of the accused was effected at B-Block near Jal Board. However, perusal of the arrest memo Ex.PW3/A shows the place of arrest as C-Block, NIA, Phase-1 near Jal Board. Thus, the said inconsistencies State vs. Bhima FIR No. 180/10 P.S.: Naraina 5 cast a doubt even on the place of arrest alleged by the prosecution.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.B. Basavaraj S/O. Shambulingegowda vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 31 August, 2021

15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that, for offence under Section 304-A of IPC, the accused was imposed sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default clauses. He would contend that accused is an aged person having number of dependants and hence, he would request 10 for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment by restricting it to the punishment of fine only. In this context he placed reliance on unreported decisions of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition 461/2011 dated 08.10.2020 and Criminal Revision Petition No.2152/2011 dated 01.04.2019 and Criminal Revision Petition 578/2020 dated 10.09.2020 and submitted that in Criminal Revision Petition No. 578/2020 only fine is imposed for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. But, said order cannot be termed as a precedent, as in the decision reported in (1987) 1 SCC 538 (State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna alias Raju), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the sentence shall be proportionate to the offence and condemned the act of imposing flee-bite sentence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Badamikar - Full Document

Revansiddappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2022

In State of Karnataka v. Krishna while dealing with the concept of adequate punishment in relation to an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the Court stated that considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal justice dispensation system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the driver of a Motor Vehicle for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. Thereafter, this Court enhanced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000 and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavanisinh Vaghubha Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2003

In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 " 1987 Cri LJ 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - D P Buch - Full Document

Nasru vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 July, 1988

20. Mr. Rastogi also brought to our notice still another recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 UJ (SC) 354 : 1987 Cri LJ 776 wherein their Lordships enhanced the sentence to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, further two months', R.I. in which case the accused had been charged for offences Under Section 279, IPC, 337 IPC, 304A IPC, 89(a) r/w Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 89(b) r/w Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was convicted by the Magistrate. On appeal, the High Court, though felt that the sentence awarded was a lenient one but it declined to exercise its power Under Section 377, Cr. P.C. On special leave petition by the State, the Supreme Court observed that here was a case where the respondent had not only driven his bus in a reckless manner and caused the death of one person and injuries to another, but he had also attempted to escape prosecution by failing to report the accident to the police authorities. Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine t he confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 1988

In the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 Reports, 296 : 1987 Cri LJ 776, the Supreme Court came down heavily when the accused was let off with a fine of Rs. 250/- only for offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. and the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to six months R.I. In that case, the learned Trial Magistrate had imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- only. The High Court was moved under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence by filing an appeal as the State was perturbed and shocked by the callous manner in which the Magistrate had dealt with the case. The Supreme Court noted with regret that the High Court declined to interfere with sentence. The High Court had taken a view that though the sentence of fine was lenient one, the period that had passed between the date of conviction and the date of hearing in the High Court was about two years which must have caused the accused lot of anxiety, and therefore refused to enhance the sentence observing that in such serious cases, the Court is expected to take a serious view of the matter. The Supreme Court observed that (para 6 of Cri LJ):
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujrat on 6 February, 1988

14-A. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju 1987 ACJ 443 (SC), the Supreme Court came down heavily when the accused was let off with a fine of Rs. 250/- only for offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to six months' R.I. In that case, the learned trial Magistrate had imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- only. The High Court was moved under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence by filing an appeal as the State was perturbed and shocked by the callous manner in which the Magistrate had dealt with the case. The Supreme Court noted with regret that the High Court declined to interfere with sentence. The High Court had taken a view that though the sentence of fine was lenient one, the period that had passed between the date of conviction and the date of hearing in the High Court was about two years which must have caused the accused lot of anxiety and therefore refused to enhance the sentence observing that in such serious cases, the court is expected to take a serious view of the matter. Supreme Court observed that:
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next