LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus SHARANAPPA BASANAGOUDA AREGOUDAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
SHARANAPPA BASANAGOUDA AREGOUDAR
MARCH 21, 2002
B
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A.
Rash and negligent driving resulting in death of four persons-Trial
C Court found accused guilty and awarded 6 months imprisonment-On revision
Single Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence-On appeal,
held, when accused found guilty of rash and negligent driving, Courts to
ensure that accused do not escape the clutches of law very lightly-Conviction
and sentence awarded by Trial Court upheld.
D
Sentencing:
Discretion of Courts to consider wide range of facts while awarding
sentence-To be exercised with due regard to larger interest of Society.
E
One 'V' alongwith his family, while returning back to his native place
by a car driven by himself had a head-on-collision with a lorry driven by the
accused-respondent. In the accident 'V' and three others died. The trial court
found accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304 of the Penal Code, and imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment.
In revision, Single Judge confirmed the conviction of the accused but reduced
F the sentence to payment of fine. Hence appeal b)' the State.
G
H
It was contended for the appellant-State that High Court was unduly
lenient in reducing the ·sentence which resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Having regard to the serious nature of the accident, which
resulted in the death of four persons, the Single Judge should not have
interfered with the sentence imposed by the court below. It may create and
set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate courts
which have to deal with several such accident cases. If the accused are found
692
-
•
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHARANAPPA BASNAGOUDA AREGOUDAR {K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN, J.J 693
guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on guard to ensure A
that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed
by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and
commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. [695-E-F]
1.2. Discretion has been given to the courts in the matter of sentence to
take stock of wide and varying facts that might be relevant for fixing the B
quantum of sentence. But it has to be exercised with due regard to larger
interest of the society. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court is upheld.
[695-G-H; 696-A]
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
407 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.2000 of the Karnataka High
Court in Crl. R.P. No. 240 of 1999.
N.P. Midha and N. Ganpathy for the Appellant.
Shankar Divate for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Karnataka against sentence
imposed on the respondent on the ground of its inadequacy. The respondent
D
E
was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate imposed a sentence of F
six months' imprisonment on the respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 304A !PC. No separate sentence was awarded for offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 !PC. The respondent filed an appeal against
his conviction and sentence, but the appellate court declined to interfere
therewith. The respondent thereafter filed a Revision before the High Court G
and by the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge confirmed the
conviction of the respondent on the three counts, but as regards the offence
punishable under Section 304A, the sentence was reduced to payment of a
fine of Rs,5,000 and in default thereof, the respondent was to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. The learned Judge had chosen to impose a
sentence for the offence under Section 337 !PC with a fine of Rs. 500, in H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 2 S.C.R.
A default to simple imprisonment for 15 days; and for the offence under Section
338 IPC with a fine of Rs. 550, in default to simple imprisonment for 15
days. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under
Section 279 IPC.
We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the
B appellant-State contended that this is a case where Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.