CHANDRASHEKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.18/2020.

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and reappreciated the material on record and by considered judgment dated 15.12.2020 and dismissed the appeal.

Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court, in this revision.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that material evidence placed on record was not sufficient enough to record a finding that there was a negligence on the part of the revision petitioner which is a sine qua non for recording the order of conviction punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition.

Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event, this Court while upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that revision petitioner is having a family to maintain, may reduce the sentence by enhancing the fine amount and portion of which can be paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order.

He would further contend that eye witness has been examined who has deposed before the Court as to the nature with which the road traffic accident occurred in a graphical manner which has been specifically appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned judgment in paragraph No.18 by contending that P.W.6 has stated that somebody was doing exercise on the public road and in order to avoid the bus dashing against them, he has to steer the bus on to the left hand side and at that juncture, it hit on the deceased and his friends. Therefore, the negligence of the petitioner is very much apparent on record and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that petitioner has not placed any mitigating circumstances on record so as to accept the argument of learned counsel for - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR the revision petitioner seeking scaling down of sentence and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the case on hand, P.W.1 is the injured in the same incident and P.W.6 is the independent eye witness. Death of the pedestrian namely Lokangouda son of Hanumagouda is on account of road traffic accident involving a bus bearing No.KA-20-C/5198 involved on

13.03.2018 at about 5.45 a.m is established. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the driver of the said bus as could be seen from the material on record.

Oral evidence of the injured witness coupled with the oral testimony of the independent eye witness is sufficient enough to conclude that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner, accident has occurred. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR

Admittedly, among the deceased and his friends, P.W.1 is also injured who was walking on the side of the road and in order to avoid the people who were doing exercise on the road, petitioner herein has steered the bus to the left hand side and hit against the pedestrian.

Further, accused has not offered any explanation whatsoever to the incident instead he has even denied the accident at the time of recording the accused statement.

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284, when the petitioner has failed to utilize the opportunity to offer his side of the incident nor any explanation to the incriminatory circumstances, order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR

Now coming to the question of adequacy of the sentence is concerned, learned Trial Magistrate without there being any proper reasons, awarded two years imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that petitioner is having a family to maintain and therefore, by enhancing the fine amount, portion of which can be paid as compensation, sought for setting aside the imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

What is the adequacy of the sentence that has been passed in a matter of this nature, and what are the factors that are to be taken into consideration while passing an adequate sentence in respect of the offence under Section 304A of IPC is no longer res integra in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR

Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is culled out hereunder for ready reference: “14. In this context, we may refer with profit to decision in Balwinder Singh [State Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone, that is, 15 days. The Court referred the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction : (Balwinder Singh case [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC pp. 186-87, para 12) “12. … ‘1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. ***

13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.’ (Dalbir Singh case [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] , SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 & 13)”

15. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State Karnataka [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The two-Judge Bench referred to Dalbir Singh [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence. Be it stated, in the said case a passage from Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 719 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 17] was quoted : (B. Nagabhushanam case [(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] , SCC p. 735, para 16)

16. … ‘5. Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The State, we hope, will attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. Maybe, the State may consider, in case of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion.’ (Rattan Singh case [(1979) 4 SCC 719 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 17] , SCC pp. 720-21, para 5)

- 14 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1887 CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2021 HC-KAR

Applying the principles of law enunciated in the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case, minimum punishment of six months imprisonment has to be ordered for the proved offence under Section 304A of IPC.

Taking note of the fact that there are no criminal antecedent insofar as petitioner is concerned and he is a professional driver, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the sentence is reduced from two years to six months by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, ends of justice would be met.