STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VASANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C, is directed against the sentence awarded by J.M.F.C., Bhatkal, in C.C.No.1358/1986 whereby the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused on his alleged plea of guilt for offences under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section 116 read with Section 89(B) of Motor Vehicles Act, to pay a fine of Rs. 350/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The respondent herein was prosecuted by Bhatkal Police under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section 89(B) read with Section 116 of Motor Vehicles Act that on 21-9-1986 at 2.30 P.M. he (accused) drove Car No.MZH 4432 on Bhatkal Honnavar Road in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed against one Subbanna Shetty and caused his death and further, he did not report the matter to the nearest police station. The accused appeared before the lower Court on 19-11-1986 and thereafter, copies of documents referred to in Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') were furnished to him and his plea of guilt was recorded and on the basis of such plea he was sentenced as mentioned already. All these proceedings have taken place on one and the same day, viz., 19-11-1986. The State being aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

(2.) That in an appeal of this kind, the aspect whether the learned Magistrate was right in convicting the accused could also be gone into was not disputed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The records of the lower Court indicate that the plea of guilt recorded by the learned Magistrate is vitiated on more than one ground. In the first instance it may be pointed out that immediately after appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him and without any lapse of time the accusation was read over to him and his plea was recorded. The furnishing of copies of documents referred to in Section 173 of the Co'de is not just an empty formality. That is meant for giving an opportunity to the accused to acquaint himself with the facts of the case and thereafter, make up his mind in that regard. The way in which the proceedings have gone on in the present case, clearly demonstrate that the accused was deprived of this opportunity of getting himself acquainted with the facts of the case put forward against him. This is covered directly by an authority of this Court reported in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs MALLAPPA SHIDLINGAPPA1.

(3.) The records indicate that the accused a resident of Kollapur has signed the plea in Marathi language. There is nothing on record to indicate that accused knew Kannada or gave the answer in reply to the question posed to him in Kannada. Section 252 of the Code enjoins that the plea shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. When on the face of it, there is no material to hold that accused knew Kannada, it may have to be held that the answer recorded by the learned Magistrate is not as nearly as possible in the language of the accused. In a decision of this Court reported in AITHAPPA CHANNAN vs STATE OF MYSORE it has been pointed out that the violation of this provision of recording .the plea as nearly as possible in the same words of the accused is an infirmity which vitiates the same.