Puttaswamy vs State Of Karnataka & Anr

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.

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. 6

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.

9

(MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated: 11.12.2008