STATE OF KARNATAKA versus KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1103 · Decided: 21-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
' 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU 
JANUARY 2 l, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
~ 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 279, 337 & 
3{)4-A~Rash 
and negligent driving-Conviction for-Imposition of sef!{ence~ 
Considerations for-Undue sympathy not to be shown to ace.used. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Sections 89 & l 12-Rash and negli-
gent driving-Conviction of driver for offence-Necessity for imposition 
of stringent punishment. 
The respondent was charged under sections 279, 337, 304-A. IPC 
and Sections 89(a) and 89(h) of the Motor Vehicles Act for having 
driven an Express Bus in a rash and negligent manner hitting a bullock 
cart as a result of which one of the persons travelling in the cart 
sustained fatal injuries and the other person sustained simple injuries. 
After the accident the respondent failed to secure medical assisf!lnce lo 
the injured person and also failed to report the accident to the police 
authorities. 
The respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges and was cqn-
victed and sentenced to pay a total line of Rs. 345 under all the live 
charges. 
In the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence, 
the High Court declined to interfere with the sentence. 
Allowing the .appeal of the State, 
HELD : (I) The Magistrate in utter disregard to the nature of 
offences, particularly the one under Section 304-A. IJ'C and the sent-
ences provided for them under the !PC and the Motor Vehicles Act, 
imposed 'flea-bite' sentenc.es on the respondent. This should ~v.e spur-
red the High Court to not only pass appropriate strictures against the 
Magistrate but also to set right the matter by enhancing the sentence at 
least for the conviction under Section 304-A IPC in exercise of its powers 
under Section 377 Cr.P.C. [1106G-IJ] 
1103 
A 
B 
.D 
E 
F 
I-! 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
(2) The High Court has failed to comprehend that the respondent 
has been let off with a total fine of Rs. 345 for his convictions under all 
the five charges. The reasons given by the High Court are really non-
existent as well as irrelevant ones. Here was a case where the respon-
dent had not only driven his bus in a reckless manner and caused the 
death of one person and injuries to another but he had also attemped to 
B 
escape prosecution hy failing to report the accident to the police 
authorities. [1107A-B] 
c 
(3) Consideration of undue sympathy will not only lead to miscar-
riage of justice but will also undermine the efficacy of the criminal 
judicial system. The imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the 
driver in such a case and that too without any extenuating or mitigating 
circumstances is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will 
unmistakably lea~·e the impression that the trial was a mockery of 
justice. [1107C-E] 
( 4) The ends of justice would be met by enhancing the sentence 
D for the most serious of the charges namely under Section 304-A !PC to 
six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo R.I. for two 
months. [1107·E-F] 
' A 
-t 
CRIMINA!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
·"' 
E 
F 
No. 653 of 1986 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31. I. 1983 of the Kamataka 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 451 of 1981 
D.N. Diwede, M. Veerappa and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the 
Appellant. 
R. Salish for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NATARAJAN, J. The light-hearted and casual manner of disposal 
G 
of the case against the respondent in C.C. No. 442 of 1980 (P.R. No. 
198/80) on the file of his court by the Additional Munsif-cum-Addi-
tional Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Madhugiri and the refusal of 
the High Court of Kamataka to enhance the sentence of the respon-
dent in exercise of its powers under Section 377 Criminal Procedure 
Code in Criminal Appeal No. 451/81 preferred by the State has com-
H 
pelled the State of Kamataka to approach this Court under Article 136 
-
«-=•
-
• 
~ 
• ), 
t' 
~ 
... 
1 
STATE OF KAR. '· KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU [NATARAJANI 
ll05 
of the Constitution to file this Appeal by Special Leave. 
The respondent has entered appearance but has not contested 
the appeal. 
The respondent was charged under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A 
Indian Penal Code and Sections 89( a) and 89(b) of the Motor Vehicles 
Act for having driven an Express bus bearing Registration No. MYT 
3066 in a rash and negligent manner at about 8.30 P.M. on 30.4.80 on 
the Madhugiri-Hosakere Road and hitting a bullock car

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