VINOD S.D. MADAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2009 in C.C. No. 1857/2005 passed by the III (Traffic) Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the judgment dated 27.11.2009 in Crl. A. No. 296/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court IV, Bangalore city, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 -A IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another term of six months. On 21.03.2005 the deceased H. Venkatesh Murthy was proceeding on his Activa Honda bearing No. KA 02 EJ 9309 on Sankey Road and at 06.30 p.m. the petitioner drove his Tata Indica car bearing No. KA 02 EX 6129 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Activa Honda. Consequently the driver of the scooter H. Venkatesh Murthy sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On information the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet in C.C. No. 1857/2005 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 -A IPC. After framing the charges the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and got marked Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.11. On appreciation of the evidence on record the trial Court found that despite 15 feet road available to the petitioner, he drove the vehicle to the right side and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. Further the eye witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 have spoken about the accident and also the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. In the circumstances the trial Court passed the impugned judgment convicting the petitioner and sentencing him. Aggrieved by this judgment of the trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl. A. No. 296/2009. The lower appellate Court on appreciation of the entire material on record confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) HEARD arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

(3.) THE petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and in default to pay the' fine to undergo simple imprisonment for another term of six months. It is brought to my notice that on the date of accident the petitioner was 31 years old, married and had 3 children. The petitioner is the only bread earner in the family. Keeping in view the gravity of offence and the family behind the petitioner including 3 minor children, I am of the considered opinion, that the sentence levied on him is on higher side and in the facts and circumstances of this case sentencing the petitioner for a term of one month with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - will meet the ends of justice. To this extent the impugned order of sentence requires modification.