STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C K DEVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this state appeal, the stale has sought enhancement of sentence imposed on the accused-respondent for offences under sections 279 and 304-a, IPC. He was charge-sheeted before the trial court of the J.M.F.C., Srirangapatna for these offences on 9.12.1988 when the accused was present, the copies of documents on which the prosecution proposed to rely were furnished to him, accusations were read over and he was called upon to plead immediately. He stated that he admits his fault (3&3)j). ActINg on that, the trial court proceeded to convict the appellant and sentenced to a fINe of Rs. 750/- with default sentence. It also directed that Rs. 500a shall be paid out of the fINe amount as compensation to the widow of the deceased krishna shelly.

(2.) THE learned s.p.p. has invited our attention to THE manner of proceeding with THE case soon after THE copies of THE papers were furnished to THE accused. The learned counsel for THE respondent Sri Gowri shankar also makes a grievance that THE trial court was not justified in recording THE plea of THE accused-respondent without affording him any opportunity to acquaint himself with THE facts of THE case and allegations against him. We have pointed out on more than one occasion in similar cases that THE compliance with Section 207 of THE Code of Criminal Procedure is not a drab formality and THE accused must have enough time to acquaint himself with THE facts of THE case to understand what is THE charge against him and THEn to plead on such charge. The trial court ought not to have proceeded to decide THE case calling upon THE accused to plead for THE accusations without giving him some time to go through THE papers. In our view, this procedure adopted by THE trial court is illegal and even where THE accused has not challenged his conviction, is entitled to challenge THE same in THE appeal filed by THE stale for enhancement of THE sentence. This court and Supreme Court are of THE view that offence under Section 304-a should not be treated lightly and flea bite sentence by imposing some fine is not proper and adequate punishment and that substantive sentence of imprisonment is called for. In such a situation, it is only necessary that THE procedure prescribed by law is slriclly adhered to by THE trial courts and if THEre is reason to believe that adequate opportunity has not been given after THE copies of THE documents were furnished to THE accused, THE very conviction becomes bad. There is anoTHEr reason why THE conviction cannot suslain, namely that though THE charge was under sections 279 and 304-a, IPC, THE trial court does not say for which offence THE fine of Rs. 750/- has been imposed and does not even say wheTHEr THE accused has been convicted for both THE offences or only for one offence. There cannot be blanket sentence for all THE offences and it is obligatory for THE trial court to say specifically what is THE sentence imposed and for which of THE offences. For THEse reasons, THE only course left for this court is to set aside THE very conviction of THE respondent and remit THE case to THE trial court for disposal according to law. Accordingly, we set aside THE very conviction. We dismiss this appeal and remit THE case to THE trial court with a direction to register it in its original number, proceed to record THE plea afresh and THEn dispose of THE case on merits according to law. The case shall be disposed of as far as possible within 3 months from THE date of receipt of THE copy of this order and THE records from this court. Fine if paid shall be refunded to THE appellant-accused.