Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442930
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M G UMA, J
GOUSEMIYAN S/O LADLE PATEL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200045 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI
For the Respondents: SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV
Separation of sentencing for minor and major offences prohibited; minor merges into major.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 181 and 187 - Conviction for rash and negligent driving leading to death - The accused, while driving, dashed into a pedestrian causing grievous injuries resulting in death - Conviction and sentence modified, upholding major offences punishable under IPC and MV Act but excluding minor offence under IPC. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Sentencing - The law dictates that minor offences merge with major offences; thus, no separate sentence for minor was warranted. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of causing the death of a minor through negligent driving resulting in grievous injuries. Multiple eyewitnesses corroborated prosecution's case. The petitioner later sought leniency in sentencing after years had elapsed since the incident.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence for minor offences while upholding sentences for major offences.
Issues: The primary issues were the confirmation of the judgment of conviction and the appropriateness of sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the petitioner could be convicted for both major and minor offences, separate punishment was not permitted for the minor offence as it merges into the major.
Result: Criminal revision petition partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused was involved in a fatal accident due to negligent driving. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. counsel argues for leniency based on the passage of time and the accused's age. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. the court clarifies separate punishments for merged offences are not justified. (Para 9) |
| 4. sentence modification is appropriate considering circumstances of the case. (Para 10) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.28/2010 on the file of the learned JMFC, Chittapur [for short, ‘the Trial Court’] is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2020 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, ‘the IPC ’] and under Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, ‘the M.V. Act’], and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC ; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC ; to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V. Act; and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act, with default sentences, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.16/2020 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi sitting at Sedam vide judgment dated 09.03.2023 while modifying the sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC .
2. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records, including the Trial Court and First Appellate Court records.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the revision petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court?"
My answer to the above point is ‘partly in the affirmative’ for the following reasons:
R E A S O N S
4. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused being the driver of the Tum-Tum bearing Reg.No.KA-32/A-7926, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life, and dashed to one Vijaykumar - a boy who was proceeding by the side of the road, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital while taking treatment. The accused who has caused the accident had not informed this fact to the nearest police station nor did he provided any first aid to the injured, and thereby he has committed the offences punishable under Section
304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 187 of M.V. Act.
5. To prove its contention, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 8 and 9. PW-1 is the uncle of the deceased, and he is also an eyewitness. PWs- 2, 8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. All these four witnesses have consistently deposed regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused, which resulted in the accident, and death of the deceased.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, even though raised several grounds in the Criminal Revision Petition challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, restricted his argument only to seek leniency in sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC , and also to set aside the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC . Learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner has given up all other contentions raised in the revision petition.
7. Learned counsel submitted that, the accident had occurred on 13.10.2009. 16 years have already lapsed. The accused is aged more than 55 years,
