SANJAY COLARO versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2558 · Decided: 21-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH, K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2558 : 2025 INSC 686
Sanjay Colaro 
v. 
State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal No. 2133 of 2025)
21 April 2025
[Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the extension of benefit under the Probation of 
Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant for causing a road accident, 
resulting in the death of the pedestrian.
Headnotes†
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Benefit under – Death by 
rash driving on a public way – Rash and negligent driving by the 
appellant resulting in the death of the pedestrian – Trial court 
convicted the appellant u/ss.279 and 304A with six months 
imprisonment and fine – High Court upheld the conviction 
and sentence awarded to the appellant – Interference  
with:
Held: Not called for – However, with regard to the sentence imposed, 
benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Sentence 
by which appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 
six months set aside – Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded 
in favour of the surviving legal heirs of the deceased in lieu of the 
benefit extended to the appellant – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.279, 
304A. [Paras 11-13]
List of Acts
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Penal Code, 1860; Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Driving in rash and negligent manner; Road accident; Compensation 
in lieu of benefit extended to accused; District Legal Services 
Authority; Underprivileged sections of society; Agricultural workers; 
Daily-wage labourers.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
2559
Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2133 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2022 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLRP No. 323 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Vikalp Sharma, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
V.N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Varun Varma, M. 
Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Md. Apzal Ansari, 
Shiv Kumar, Ms. Vaishnavi, Prakash Jadhav.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant 
against the final judgment dated 21.11.2022 passed by the High 
Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No. 323 of 2013 
wherein the High Court has dismissed the revision petition preferred 
by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment of conviction and 
sentence dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & 
JMFC, Ramanagara1 in CC No. 431 of 2008 under Section 279 and 
304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.2
3.	
Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2008, at 
about 11 a.m. near a place called Ramadevara Pada on Bengaluru-
Mysuru Road, the accused-appellant has been alleged to be driving 
his motorcar bearing registration no. KA-03-MC-2926 in a rash and 
negligent manner and dashed into one Sri Chaluvappa, a pedestrian. 
Due to the said accident, the said Chaluvappa sustained multiple 
injuries on his body and succumbed to the same before he was taken 
1	
Trial Court
2	
IPC
2560
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the hospital. The accused was charged of offences punishable 
under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
4.	
The appellant was convicted under the above-mentioned provisions 
vide judgment dated 21.11.2011 and was sentenced to undergo simple 
imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, 
failing which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one 
month. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Principal District 
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara District which was dismissed 
vide order dated 25.02.2013 and the judgment passed by the Trial 
Court was affirmed.
5.	
Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate court, the 
appellant filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court. 
The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the said revision 
petition and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the 
appellant, while also granting 45 days to the appellant to surrender 
before the Trial Court.
6.	
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before us.
7.	
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
material on record.
8.	
Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
has submitted that the said unfortunate incident is admittedly a 
case of road accident without any malicious intent on the part of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.