Mahadevanna D.M vs State Of Karnataka

2026 INSC 504 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4563 of 2022]

MAHADEVANNA D.M. …..APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. …..RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 03.03.2022 of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru in criminal revision, partly allowing the

same by setting aside the conviction of Appellant for the charge of

Section 2791 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), while

sustaining conviction for the charge of Section 304-A2 of IPC read Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.05.18 17:39:58 IST Reason:

1 Rash driving or riding on a public way.

2 Causing death by negligence.

1 with Section 1343(b) and Section 1874 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(in short ‘MVA’) vide judgment dated 31.10.2012 of the Trial Court

and confirmed by First Appellate Court on 01.02.2013.

3. The facts in nutshell are that, Appellant is employed as driver

with Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC). On

the date of accident, i.e., 27.12.2011, at around 7:15 p.m., while

he was driving bus bearing registration no. KA-01-F-3716, it met

with an accident and dashed one Rangamma who was crossing the

road on feet. Due to impact, she sustained fatal injuries and later

succumbed at the hospital. The Appellant did not inform the police

about the incident. On lodging of FIR against him, investigation

was carried out for the offence described and the charge sheet was

filed. The Trial Court found that the charges of Sections 279, 304-

A of IPC and Section 134-B read with Section 187 of MVA are

proved. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred first appeal before the

Additional Sessions Judge, which also came to be dismissed on

01.02.2013 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

4. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the High Court in

criminal revision, which was partly allowed vide impugned order

3 Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person.

4 Punishment for offences relating to accident.

2 and by setting aside the conviction for the charge of Section 279,

though maintaining the conviction for charge under Section 304-

A of IPC and reaffirmed the sentence as directed by the Trial Court

accordingly. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

5. In the present proceedings, while issuing notice on

04.10.2024, deposit of ₹5,00,000/- within eight weeks was

directed by this Court and the sentence of appellant was

suspended subject to final outcome of this appeal. The family

members of the deceased were also directed to be joined as parties.

In compliance, the amount as directed was deposited by the

Appellant with the registry and is lying in a fixed deposit as

revealed from the office report dated 21.04.2026.

6. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.04.2026, the

counsels for the parties were heard at length. It was set forth on

behalf of the Appellant who is a driver of BMTC that, his case may

be considered under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

(in short ‘1958 Act’). The maximum punishment for offence under

Section 304-A of IPC is extendable to two years and he is eligible

for such probation. On a query put to the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that, he

has no objection to the prayer made by the Appellant provided the

3 amount deposited by the Appellant is released in favour of the

family members of deceased by way of compensation.

7. In the light of the above submissions, we proceed to consider

the case of the Appellant under Section 3 of the 1958 Act. Section

3 inter-alia deals with the power of the Court to release certain

offenders after admonition if they are found guilty of having

committed any offence with imprisonment of not more than two

years. The Appellant in the instant case has been convicted for

offence under Section 304-A of IPC read with Section 134(b) and

Section 187 of MVA. Neither of the charges has a prescribed

punishment of more than 2 years, and hence, Appellant satisfies

the pre-requisites of Section 3 of 1958 Act.

8. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of 1958 Act,

while confirming the conviction of the Appellant, we direct that

instead of sentencing, the Appellant be released after due

admonition. Moreover, since the Appellant has been extended the

benefit under Sections 3 of the 1958 Act, he shall not incur any

disqualification affecting his service career, if any, arising out of

the conviction, in terms of Section 12 of the 1958 Act.

9. In view of the above, the sentence of the Appellant for charge

under Section 304-A of IPC for a period of six months along with

4 fine of Rs. 3000/- and fine of Rs. 500/- for charge under Section

134(b) read with Section 187 of MVA, are commuted to fine of Rs.

5,00,000/-, which is made payable towards compensation to the

family of deceased. Since, the Appellant is in service of BMTC,

therefore, the fine imposed be not treated as disqualification for

employment, in view of benefit granted under Section 3 and 12 of

1958 Act to the Appellant.

10. The Registry is directed to release the amount deposited by

the Appellant to the deceased's family members along with accrued

interest upon the submission of their bank account details. The

disbursement shall be made within four weeks of receiving the

bank details.

11. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed-of in above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed-of.

……….…………….…………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

……….…………….…………J. (ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)

NEW DELHI, MAY 18th 2026.

5