Minor offences under Section 279 merge with major offences under Section 304A, warranting no separate sentencing; courts can modify sentences considering time elapsed since the offence.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The petitioner being the accused in C.C. No.25/2011 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhalki, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2014 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing the accused to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC; to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with default sentences, while acquitting the accused under Section 187 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (for short ‘MV Act’). The same was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2014 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) vide judgment dated 03.08.2020.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner being Driver of the Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-04/7559, drove the same towards Bhalki in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on 22.10.2010 at 2.00 p.m., and dashed to a Mini Door (Tum-Tum) bearing registration No.KA-39/2408 and caused injuries to the inmates of the vehicle. The accident had resulted in death of four persons. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of M.V. Act.

3. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 23, got marked Exs.P1 to P32 documents and identified M.O. 1 to 17 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 279 , 304A, 337, 338 of IPC. Accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused had preferred the appeal in Crl.A. No.19/2014. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of entire materials available on record, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused-petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

7. My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner even though has raised several grounds in the revision petition, has fairly conceded that PWs.13 to 17 are the injured eyewitnesses, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, he restricted his arguments only to seek leniency in sentencing the accused.

9. The materials on record disclos