LexPUTTASWAMY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 272 e • ' A PUTTASWAMY II. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 2015 of 2008) B DECEMBER 11, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] ~ ~ Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Invoking of- c Power of Supreme Court to give quietus to litigation by giving pragmatic solution - Offence uls.304A - Compounding of- On facts, accused was convicted under s.304A !PC for ~ causing death of minor girl by rash· and negligent driving - He was sentenced to unde'rgo simple imprisonment for 6 D months and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,0001- - Meanwhile compromise arrived at between the parties - Held:Offence u/s.304A is not compoundfJble in terms of s.320 CrPC, however, on facts, instead of confining the accused to prison, interest of justice would be better served if he compensates v E the family of deceased on account of loss suffered by them - While maintaining conviction, amount of fine increased from Rs.2,0001- to Rs.20,0()01- to be paid by accused to parents of the deceased - Sentence reduced to period already undergone, subject' to payment of fine - Code of F Criminal Procedure, 1973 -l s.320 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.304A . i(i -~ Accused-appellant was inter alia convicted by the· Courts below uls. 304A IPC for causing death of a seven G year old girl by rash and negligent driving of his tractor. During pendency of the present appeal, the matter was settled between the concerned parties and a compromise petition was executed between the appellant + r and the complainant. 272 - H ._, PUTTASWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 273 ''> The question which consequently arose for A -- ), consideration in the present appeal was whether the offence under s.304A IPC could be compounded even though the same was not covered by the provisions of s.320 CrPC. 8 Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In order to meet certain unusual ~ situations, this Court has from time to time taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus c .........__ to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution. It has also been consistently held by this Court that when an offence did not come within the ambit of s.320, CrPC but the proceedings taken on the basis thereof deserved to be terminated, a sentence could always be reduced while D, maintaining the conviction and in most cases the -,j sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence already undergone. In other cases, where circumstances so warranted, even the sentence was altered which at times brought the proceedings within the scope of s.320, E CrPC and the offence was allowed to be compounded. Even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of s.320 CrPC, the Court may, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction. [Paras 5] [276- F )> C-F] ~· 1.2. In the present case, th~ appellant was convicted under ss.279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of G Rs.2,000/-. The sentence as far as conviction under s.279 IPC is concerned was set aside by the High Court. What ~ ...-,. remains after the judgment of the High Court is conviction under ss.279 and 304A IPC wherein the appellant was .... sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. This is one of those cases H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A · where instead of confining the appellant to prison, the interest of justice will be better served if he is made to compensate the family of the deceased on account of the loss suffered by them. [Para 9] [277-E-H] 8 1.3. While maintaining the appellant's conviction under ss.279 and 304A IPC, notwithstanding the agreement arrived at between the parties, the amount of fine is increased from Rs.2,00,0/- to Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the parents of the deceased and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, C subject to payment of the fine. [Para 10] [277-H; 278-A] Surendra Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa (1999) 5 sec 238; Ram Lal and another vs. State of J & K (1999) 2 SCC 213; Bachhu Sin~h vs. State of U.P (2000) 10 D SCC 313; Avinash Shettyvs.State of Karnataka and another (2004) 13 SCC 375 and Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. (2005) 1 sec 347, referred to~ \.-..
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.