LexB. NAGABHUSHANAM versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 444 ~ - A B. NAGABHUSHANAM v STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 874 Of 2008) B MAY 13, 2008 [S.S. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 279 and 304A - Bus hitting a child causing her death c - Conviction of bus driver by trial court - High Court uphold- ing the conviction, but modifying the sentence to six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50001- uls 304A - HELD: There is a concurrent finding of fact that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently - Sentence awarded by D High Court canr:ot be said to be shocking. The appellant was prosecuted_ for commission of of- fences punishable u/ss 279 and 304-A IPC. The prosecu- tion case was that the bus which was b~ing driven by the E appellant dashed against a child aged about seven years causing her death. The trial court convicted the appellant of the offences charged. It awarded the appellant a sen- tence of simple imprisonment for one year and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable u/s 304A and one month's simple imprisonment and a fine F of Rs.500/- u/s 279 IPC. On a revision petition filed by the appellant, the High Court upheld the conviction under both the counts but modified the sentence u/s 304A to six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-. Still not satisfied, the accused filed the instant appeal. G It was contended for the appellant that from the state- ment of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the bus was being driven at a speed of 15-20 km per hour, the case of rash and negligent driving was not made out. H 444 B. NAGABHUSHANAM v:STATE OF 445 KARNATAKA _, Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: PW 1 is a witness to the accident. According to him, the child sustained grievous injuries on head and other parts of the body. In answer to a question put to him in cross-examination, he stated that the bus was be- B ing driven at a high speed. It was found by the trial court that the evidence of PW.1 alone was sufficient to hold that the appellant was guilty of the offences charged. Other prosecution witnesses were standing at different places. They had occasion to see the accident from different di- rections. Besides, the spot 'mahazar' (Ext. P-2) disclosed c that there was a break-mark for about 20-25 feet on the road. The contents of the 'mahazar' (Ext. P-5) were not challenged. The bus admittedly did not have any mechani- cal failure. Appellant did not say that there was an error of judgment on his part. The High Court while exercising it? D , limited revisional jurisdiction also discussed the case at some detail. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the bus was being driven by the appellant rashly and negli- gently. There is no reason to take a different view. The sentence awarded by the High Court cannot be said to E be shocking. [para 6-11] [451E, 447H 450ABC 449F,G] Oa/bir Singh v: State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82; and Rattan Singh v: State of Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 719 - relied on. F Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1848 - held inapplicable. State of A.P vs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao & anr (2004) 4 sec 399 - referred to. CRIMINALAPPEALJURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. G 874 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. R.P No. 618/ 2004 H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A S K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar for the B Appellant. Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant was the driver of a bus bearing registration No. AP-10-Z-5260. He was driving the said bus on Bangalore- Hindupur road. On 10.1.1999, at about 2:00 p.m. when the bus c was passing through a village commonly known as Kamalapura, it dashed against a child by name Shantha, as a result whereof she died. Shantha was about 7 years old at that time. A criminal prosecution under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against him. He was found guilty of the said 0 offences. He was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304A and simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punish- able under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal E preferred thereagainst by him
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.