Puttaswamy Vs. State of
Karnataka & ANR [2008] INSC 2136 (11 December 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2015 OF 2008 (@
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.4483 of 2008) Puttaswamy ...Appellant State of
Karnataka & Another ...Respondents
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
The
appellant in this appeal was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections
279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a seven year old
girl on account of his rash and negligent driving of his tractor. The appeal
from the said order and conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge, the appellant 2 moved in revision before the High
Court. In revision, the Karnataka High Court, while confirming the conviction,
set aside the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279
of the Indian Penal Code but maintained the conviction and sentence in respect
of the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the
appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay
a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of such payment, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.600/- for the
offence punishable under Section 279 I.P.C. and in default of such payment to
undergo simple imprisonment for a month.
3.
In
this appeal the appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division) and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, II Court, Hassan, and the subsequent orders passed by 3 the
Sessions Court and the High Court maintaining the conviction under Sections 279
and 304-A and the sentence in respect of the conviction under Section 304-A, I.P.C.
4.
During
the hearing of this appeal, at the admission stage, learned counsel for the
appellant informed the Court that the matter had been settled between the
parties and a compromise petition had been executed between the appellant and
the complainant. On such submission, the complainant was impleaded as a party
to the present proceedings and the short point which ultimately arose during
the hearing is whether the offence under Section 304-A could at all be
compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320
I.P.C.
5.
The
aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in
connection with compounding of offences punishable under 4 the criminal
justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of
matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance
between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties.
In order to meet certain unusual situations, this Court has from time to time
taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of
the Constitution, in order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a
pragmatic solution. It has also been consistently held by this Court that when
an offence did not come within the ambit of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure
Code but the proceedings taken on the basis thereof deserved to be terminated,
a sentence could always be reduced while maintaining the conviction and in most
cases the sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence already undergone.
In other cases, where circumstances so warranted, even the sentence was
altered 5 which at times brought the proceedings within the scope of Section
320 of Criminal Procedure Code and the offence was allowed to be compounded.
6.
In
this connection regard may be had to the decision of this Court in the case of
Surendra Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa [(1999) 5 SCC 238], which
was disposed of by a Three-Judge Bench, wherein in respect of a conviction
under Section 326 I.P.C. the sentence was reduced to the period already
undergone together with fine. Of course, as mentioned hereinbefore, the said
decision was rendered in the facts of the said case.
7.
Reference
was also made to two other decisions of this Court in i) Ram Lal and another
vs.
1.
State
of J & K [(1999) 2 SCC 213) and ii) Bachhu Singh vs. State of U.P.[(2000
(10) SCC 313], wherein the same formula was applied.
8.
As
far as the other proposition is concerned, reference may be made to the
decision of this Court in the case of Avinash Shetty vs. State of Karnataka and
another [(2004 (13) SCC 375] where the conviction was altered from Section 326
to 324 I.P.C. and the offence was permitted to be compounded. There is yet
another decision in the case of Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. [(2005) 1 SCC
347] which deals directly with a conviction under Section 326 IPC. This Court
allowed the parties to compound the case in the special facts and circumstances
of the case, but also directed that the same was not to be treated as a precedent.
9.
What
emerges from all these decisions is that even if an offence is not compoundable
within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in
view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence
imposed while maintaining 7 the conviction. In the present case, the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and
has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The sentence as far as conviction under Section
279 I.P.C. is concerned has been set aside by the High Court. What remains
after the judgment of the High Court is the conviction under Sections 279 and
304-A I.P.C. wherein the appellant was sentenced to undergo six months simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In our view, this is one of those
cases where instead of confining the appellant in prison, the interest of
justice will be better served if he is made to compensate the family of the deceased
on account of the loss suffered by them.
10.
Accordingly,
while maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A
I.P.C., notwithstanding the agreement arrived 8 at between the parties, we
increase the amount of fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the
appellant to the parents of the deceased and reduce the sentence to the period
already undergone, subject to payment of the fine. The aforesaid amount is to
be deposited by the appellant in the Trial Court within three weeks from date,
and on such deposit, the said amount shall be made over to the parents of the
deceased and the appellant shall be released forthwith. In default of such
deposit, this order shall remain in abeyance for a period of four weeks and if
still no deposit is made within the said period the appeal will stand
dismissed.
11.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
_________________J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
_________________J
Back
Pages: 1 2 3