Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Mahadevanna D. M. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Key Points: - The Appellant is convicted under IPC 304-A read with IPC 134(b) and MVA 187; the conviction for IPC 279 was set aside by the High Court, which was upheld by this Court. (!) (!) (!) - The Court held that neither charge has a prescribed punishment exceeding two years, satisfying Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (!) (!) - Under Section 3 of the 1958 Act, the Court directed that instead of sentencing, the Appellant be released after due admonition. (!) - The Appellant shall not incur any disqualification affecting his service career due to the benefit under Sections 3 and 12 of the 1958 Act. (!) - The sentence for the 304-A IPC offense and related MVA offenses was commuted to a fine of Rs. 5,00,000 payable as compensation to the deceased’s family. (!) - The amount already deposited by the Appellant with the registry shall be released to the deceased’s family along with accrued interest within four weeks upon submission of bank details. (!) (!) - The appeal is disposed of in terms of these directions. (!)
JUDGMENT
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2022 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in criminal revision, partly allowing the same by setting aside the conviction of Appellant for the charge of Section 279 [Rash driving or riding on a public way] of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), while sustaining conviction for the charge of Section 304-A2 [Causing death by negligence] of IPC read with Section 134[Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person](b) and Section 187 [Punishment for offences relating to accident] of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘MVA’) vide judgment dated 31.10.2012 of the Trial Court and confirmed by First Appellate Court on 01.02.2013.
3. The facts in nutshell are that, Appellant is employed as driver with Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC). On the date of accident, i.e., 27.12.2011, at around 7:15 p.m., while he was driving bus bearing registration no. KA-01-F-3716, it met with an accident and dashed one Rangamma who was crossing the road on feet. Due to impact, she sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed at the hospital. The
Causing death by rash and negligent driving – Claim for benefit of probation can be allowed where neither of charges has prescribed punishment of more than 2 years.
Elapse of time is not a ground to trivialize seriousness of a crime committed by offender and to take a lenient view in matter of punishment.
Convictions under Section 304-A IPC may permit probation for first-time offenders, balancing justice and rehabilitation, especially in negligence-based cases lacking mens rea.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of rash and negligent driving leading to accidents resulting in death and injuries, the prosecution must prove the rash and negligent....
The court confirmed conviction for negligent driving leading to death, emphasizing the validity of evidence and modifying sentencing for rehabilitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
