STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHARANAPPA BASNAGOUDA AREGOUDAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
March 21,2002
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Appellant
VERSUS
SHARANAPPA BASNAGOUDA AREGOUDAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SARABJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-544] [REFERRED]RAVI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-567] [REFERRED TO]
G JAGADEESWARAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT (RETD ) O P SHARMA & ANR VS. KAMLA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-387] [REFERRED]
SANJEEV NANDA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM KANDE S/O GANPAT KANDE VS. STATE OF GOA REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-220] [REFERRED]
BANSILAL BABUJI VANJARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. K FARID ALIAS FARISAHEB [LAWS(KAR)-2005-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. BASAVARAJSIDDAPPA JADHAV [LAWS(KAR)-2008-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PRASHANTH [LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-136] [REFERRED TO]
N SELVARAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-468] [REFERRED TO]
SHALINDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBAHADUR SHERPA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY VS. SUSHIL ANSAL [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA DAS NAWIT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-223] [REFERRED TO]
Madhusudhanshetty VS. The State of Karnataka, Traffic Circle, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada [LAWS(KAR)-2012-11-200] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH ANJINEYYA WADDER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAFAT KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-5-171] [REFFERED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-5-185] [REFERRED TO 30]
RAJARAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
PANNEERSELVAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-523] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PUTTA SWAMY [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-173] [REFERRED TO]
CHARKU SINGH ALIAS BIHARI SINGH VS. STATE OF C.G [LAWS(CHH)-2009-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-256] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-347] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SAURABH BAKSHI [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KUMAYIAN [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
S B NAGARAJU S/O BEEREGOWDA VS. STATE BY ARAKALGUD POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA VALMIKI VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SAHU S/O JHADOORAM SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-9-52] [REFERRED]
PANKAJ YADAV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-372] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. CHANDER PARKASH ALIAS PINKU [LAWS(HPH)-2013-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-510] [REFERRED]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. BHEEMAPA JAKKANNA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
K.P. SHIVAPPA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-312] [REFERRED TO]
C RAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-11-133] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-293] [REFERRED]
S P S RATHORE VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-742] [REFERRED]
DEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAN LAL SHARMA VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. INTEZAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVANISINH VAGHUBHA ZALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION VS. SHANKARA POOJARI [LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-261] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. K FARID ALIAS K FARISAHEB [LAWS(KAR)-2005-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
R RADHAKRISHNAN ALIAS VELUSAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-547] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K. G. Balakrishnan, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is preferred by the State of Karnataka against sentence imposed on the respondent on the ground of its inadequacy. The respondent 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 six months' imprisonment on the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 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 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 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in 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.
(3.)We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended that this is a case where the respondent was found guilty of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of four persons and injury to one person. The learned single Judge, it was submitted, was unduly lenient by awarding a light sentence to the respondent. It was submitted that this has caused a serious miscarriage of justice and, therefore the impugned judgment be altered by awarding appropriate sentence on the respondent.
(2.)This appeal is preferred by the State of Karnataka against sentence imposed on the respondent on the ground of its inadequacy. The respondent 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 six months' imprisonment on the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 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 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 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in 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.
(3.)We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended that this is a case where the respondent was found guilty of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of four persons and injury to one person. The learned single Judge, it was submitted, was unduly lenient by awarding a light sentence to the respondent. It was submitted that this has caused a serious miscarriage of justice and, therefore the impugned judgment be altered by awarding appropriate sentence on the respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.