LexGURU BASAVARAJ @ BEENE SETTAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 8 S.C.R. 189 GURU BASAVARAJ @ BEENE SETTAPPA A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1325 of 2012) AUGUST 29, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A - Prosecution under, with s. 187 of Motor Vehicles Act - Motor accident - Causing simple injuries to many, grievous injuries C to two and death of one - Trial court convicting the accused- driver for the offences under /PC and acquitting him for the offence under Motor Vehicles Act - Accused was sentenced to SJ for six months and fine with default clause - Appellate court upholding the conviction but setting aside sentence of o fine - Order of appellate court upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Conviction justified - Prosecution proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused - The sentence awarded by courts below also does not warrant any interference - Sentence/Sentencing - E Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 187. Sentence/Sentencing - Proportionality in sentence - In motor accident cases - An appropriate punishment works as an eye-opener for persons who are not careful while driving - It is duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed taking into regard commission of crime and its impact on social order. Compensation - Grant of, uls. 357(3) Cr.P.C. - Held: F Such compensation not to be regarded as a substitute in all G circumstances for adequate sentence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 357(3) - Sentence/Sentencing. Criminal Law - Conviction and sentence - Distinction between. 189 H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A The appellant-accused was charged for the offences punishable u/ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC r/w. s. 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the accused was<iriving a new tractor attached with an old trailer in which goods were loaded alongwith B many people. The trailer turned turtle resulting in simple injuries to many and grievous injuries to 3, one of whom succumbed to the injuries. The accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the accident occurred due to mechanical f!lilure and not due to rash and negligent c driving. Trial court acquitted the accused u/s. 187 of the Act and convicted him u/ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The appellate court upheld the conviction imposed by the trial court, but set aside the sentence of fine for the offence punishable u/s. 279 IPC. High Court upheld the 0 order of appellate court. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that accident was due to mechanical failure and not due to rash and negligent driving; that the accused having been acquitted u/s. 279 IPC could not have been punished in E respect of rest of the offences; and that the age of the accused at the time of incident (22 years) and his solemnization of marriage to be taken as mitigating factor and the sentence of imprisonment to be restricted to the period already undergone and the quantum of fine be F enhanced. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On a careful scrutiny of the material brought on record, all the courts have placed reliance on G independent witnesses as well as the testimony of PW- 10, the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The manner in which the accident occurred due to detachment of the trailer from the tractor and the distance to which the tractor moved vividly reveals that the vehicle in question was driven H recklessly at a high speed. The plea of mechanical failure GURU BASAVARAJ @ BEENE SETTAPPA v. STATE 191 OF KARNATAKA was not even suggested to the Inspector. What is sought A to be emphasised before this Court is that PW-3 has deposed that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure. The trial court as well as the High Court has not accepted the testimony of PW-3 as he is only an agriculturist while the other technical experts including s the Motor Vehicle Inspector have deposed about the rash and negligent driving. Analysing the evidence in entirety; the trial judge as well as the appellate judge has returned the finding as regards the rash and negligent driving. The analysis of the factual score in this regard cannot be c regarded to be perverse and, therefore, not liable to be unsettled by this Court. [Para 12] [198-C-F, H; 199-A] 2. There is a distinction between conviction and sentence. A conviction is the proof of the offence committed by an accused. It is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.