- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100212 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SHRI. SHARANAYYA S/O. CHANNAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: UPPARANANDIHAL, TQ: LINGSAGUR, NOW RESIDING AT ILAKAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED, BY ADDL. SPP, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MALA BHUTE, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.29/2014 DATED 20.10.2018, PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.885/2006 DATED 28.03.2014, PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUNGUND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE OF EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.29/2014 dated 20.10.2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. 2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. That the CPI of Hungund Circle has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC along with offence punishable under Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [for short, ‘IMV Act’] alleging, that the accused herein on 05.06.2006 at 9:30 PM by driving - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 his lorry bearing Registration No.KA-29/A-4689 in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner from Mudagal towards Nadawadagi with three big and wide granite stones loaded in the said lorry of which one of them was tilted about 3 feet towards right side of the lorry, dashed against the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-36/F- 420. Because of this impact, three inmates of the bus died and other inmates of the bus sustained simple and grievous injuries on their person. With these allegations, a complaint came to be filed by the driver of the KSRTC bus as per Ex.P.2 which was registered by PW.19- Muralidhar Shivaram Suryavanshi- the then PSI of the concerned Police Station which was registered in Crime No.91/2006 and thus set the criminal law in motion. The Investigating Officer, on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4. The accused appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act framed are read - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 over and explained to the accused in Kannada, the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined in all 22 witnesses from PWs.1 to 22 and got marked 29 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.29 and closed prosecution evidence. During the course of cross- examination, the portion of evidence of PW.12 was marked as Ex.D.1. On closure of the evidence of both side, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 6. The learned trial Magistrate on hearing the arguments of both side and on evaluating of the evidence placed on record, found the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 “Acting U/S.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Ss.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC along with the offence punishable U/S.187 M.V.Act. Thereby he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/S 279 of I.P.C. IDSI for a period of 45 days. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/S 337 of IPC IDSI for a period of 45 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/S 338. IDSI for a period of 3 months and the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable U/S 304(a) of IPC. IDSI for a period of 6 months. Further the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/S 187 IMV Act. IDSI for a period of 45 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.” 7. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Magistrate was challenged by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 the accused in Criminal Appeal No.29/2014. The First Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on reassessment of the evidence confirmed the judgement of conviction and reduced the sentence with regard to the offence under Section 304A of IPC to the extent of one year instead of two years imposed by the trial Court by maintaining the other sentence vide judgment dated 20.10.2018. This is how now the revision petitioner/ accused is before this Court challenging the judgments of the Courts below. 8. Sri.Santosh Nargund, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused submits that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus by its driver. It was a head on collision. As it was raining at that time, the accused being the driver of lorry loaded with granite stones was driving the same in a slow manner and the KSRTC bus driver was not having any wipers to clean the rainwater on the windscreen. Because of that, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, he did not witness - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 the said lorry coming from the opposite direction and wrongly went towards the right side and dashed to the lorry. He submits that, this conduct of the driver of the KSRTC bus itself goes to establish that, he was rash and negligent in driving the KSRTC bus in which three persons being the inmates of the bus have succumbed to the death. He would submit that, there is no fault of the driver of the said lorry in causing the said accident. He further submits that, the Panchas to the scene of offence so examined in this case, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Based on the self-serving evidence of the inmates of the bus, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused person which is wrongly confirmed by the First Appellate Court. He would submit that, in addition to the pleadings and also grounds urged in the revision petition, the accused/ revision petitioner is entitled for acquittal. He prays to set aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below and acquit the accused by allowing this revision petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 9. Per contra, the learned counsel Smt.Mala Bhute, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, the KSRTC bus driver has given his evidence stating that, he was driving the vehicle in a slow manner. It is found that, the lorry driver was driving his lorry in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, he came towards the right side of the road and dashed to the KSRTC bus. Because of this impact, though he had not sustained any injuries, but the other inmates of the Bus sustained simple & grievous injuries and three persons sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. According to her, the inmates of the bus as well as himself have seen the lorry coming from the opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Further, she submits that, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence and have rightly come to the conclusion that, because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver i.e., the accused, the said accident has taken place. In support of her submission, she relied upon the findings of the learned - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 trial Court based upon the evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Thus, she prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. In view of the rival submissions of both the side, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed any legal or factual error in coming to the conclusion that the accused being the driver of the lorry is guilty of the offences so alleged against him? 2. If so, whether the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court require any interference by this Court? 11. It is a case of accident. In a case of present nature, it is a bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent evidence - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 and the prosecution has to prove the accident as well as death. In this case, death of three persons in the said accident is not in dispute. Number of inmates of the bus had sustained injuries both simple and grievous. This fact is also not disputed by the defence. As per the case of the prosecution, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. Whereas, it is defence of the accused that, as it was a head-on collision between two vehicles from the opposite direction with each other, the driver of the KSRTC bus was at fault. He was not having any wipers on the windscreen therefore, as it was raining at that time, it was the KSRTC bus driver who was rash and negligent in driving the bus and because of the same, the said accident has taken place. It is further defence of the accused that, he is innocent and has not committed any offence much less alleged against him. 12. Now let me analyse, whether the prosecution is able to prove the accident and death of three persons. The complaint allegations as well as the documentary - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 evidence to establish about the accident and as well as the death of three persons so stated in the complaint is not disputed by the defence. However, the prosecution relies upon documents like Ex.P.1-the scene of offence Panchanama as well as the other documents. To prove the contents of the Panchanama, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e., PW.1-Shridhar Rattayya Chitturi and PW.2-Venkateshwarrao Satyanarayan Mogalavu. Unfortunately, these two witnesses have been turned hostile and nothing worth is elicited from their mouth. Therefore, their evidence would not help the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 2 are the inquest Panchas. 13. PW.3-Devappa Parappa Kumbar is the driver of the said bus. According to his evidence, he was driving his bus at 9:00 PM on that day from Jamkhandi side towards Lingasur, when he crossed 3 Kilometres of Nandagadi village, at that time, from the opposite direction, a lorry loaded with three granite stones came and the stones were having a length of 13 feet. The lorry - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 driver suddenly came towards the right side of the road towards KSRTC bus and dashed. Because of this impact, the glasses of the said bus were broken and two persons died on the spot and others injured. With regard to the said accident, he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.2. He being the driver of the said KSRTC bus specifically speaks about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It is suggested to PW.3 by the defence that, the lorry driver was driving the lorry in a slow manner and he himself went towards the lorry and dashed to the same. But, this suggestion is denied by PW.3. It is suggested that, when the lorry was moving towards the left side of the road, he went in the middle of the road and dashed but, this suggestion is also denied by him. Except the denial, nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW.3 to show that, the lorry driver was not at fault. PW.3 being the eye-witness and the driver of the said KSRTC bus has come before the trial Court and stated that, because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry only, the said - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 accident has taken place. There is no further denial of this fact by the defence. 14. PW.4-Mahammadhusen Bavasab Anegundi is a Pancha to Ex.P.3, so also PW.5-Venkateshrao Kalagera and PW.6-Channarao Venkatarao Chilkuri are the inmates of the bus. According to these witnesses, when the said accident took place, they were sleeping, therefore, the prosecution declared them as hostile witnesses and cross- examined them. But nothing worth is elicited in the cross- examination. Because of the hostility of these three witnesses PW.4 to 6, their evidence would become inconsequential to the case of the prosecution. 15. PW.7-Raghavendra Fakirappa Hiragannavar is also one of the inmate of the Bus and he is specific that, because of driving the lorry in a speed manner by its driver, the said lorry dashed to the bus. Lorry was coming in a high speed. There were 38 passengers travelling in the said bus. He has not sustained any injuries, but, he has shifted the injured passengers to the Hospital. Though, this PW.7 is cross-examined by the defence but, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 except the denial nothing worth is elicited. All the suggestions directed to him are denied by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW.7 do demonstrate that, driver was rash and negligent in driving the said lorry in the manner alleged in the complaint. 16. PW.8-Veeresh Mallappa Mudagall was the inmate of the said bus and he was travelling to Karwar at that time. He states that, after Nandavadagi village, a lorry came and dashed to the Bus. He states that, he cannot say, how the said accident has taken place. PW-9- Fairozahammad Mahammadkhan Peerajade is the Pancha to Ex.P.3 and 4 have been turned hostile. So also, PW.10- Hasimbi Abdulrafi Badegar is a Pancha to Ex.P.3. These three witnesses have been turned Hostile but, nothing worth is elicited. Therefore, the evidence of PW.8 to 10 would become inconsequential to the case of the prosecution. 17. PW.11-Basavaraj Ramanna Mattur, PW.12- Neelamma Basavaraj Matturl, PW.13-Vishnu Kalavar, PW.14-Bharathi Vishnu Kalavar and PW.15- - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 Veerabhadrayya Rudrayya Moolimani were the inmates of the said bus at the relevant time. On reading the evidence of these inmates of the bus, they do suggest that, when the said accident has taken place, these 4 persons were travelling in the bus as passengers. This fact is not disputed by the defence. The bus was moving on the highway and when any vehicle is coming from opposite side, the driver of the bus has to take all precautions. Though, it is a defence of the accused that, the driver of the KSRTC bus came towards the right side and dashed but, the evidence of these four witnesses stated supra do demonstrate that, the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving the bus with all precautions and the driver of the offending lorry was rash and negligent in driving the lorry. This fact has been spoken to by these witnesses. These four witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence at length but, they have withstood the test of cross- examination to prove the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 18. PW.16-Ashok Tukaramappa Kiragi is a Doctor so also PW.17-Dr.Shrishail Gururaj Jamakhandi. These two Doctors have examined the injured and issued the wound certificates at Ex.P.8 and P.20. While marking these documents no little finger is raised by the defence. No effective cross-examination is directed to this PW.16 and 17. Thus, it is proved that, defence admits about the injuries sustained by the passengers of the bus as per the wound certificates. Thus, it is proved that, the inmates of the bus have sustained simple and grievous injuries due to the accident. 19. PW.18-Jayaram Nanappa Nayak is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has inspected the vehicles i.e., lorry bearing it’s registration No.KA-29/A-4689 and bus bearing its registration No.KA-36/F-420. On reading the contents of the report, it shows that, the said accident has not taken place not because of any mechanical defects. This fact is not disputed by the defence. According to PW.18, he has issued Ex.P.26. Except the denial nothing is elicited from his mouth to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.26. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 Therefore, I believe the evidence in respect of issuing Ex.P.26. 20. PW.19-Muralidhar Shivaram Suryavanshi was the Police Officer, who has received the complaint and set the criminal law in motion. This fact is not disputed by the defence. PW.20 is the Investigation Officer went to the scene of offence, as well as prepared the charge sheet. This fact is also not disputed by the defence. 21. PW.21-Vithal Parasuram Jagali was a Dy.SP who was the Inspector at the relevant time and took up Investigation from Muralidhar Shivaram Suryavanshi, PSI. He conducted the Investigation and obtained the relevant Inquest Panchanama, Postmortem Report etc and filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 22. PW.22-Rafeeq Usmanasab Maniyar who was the inmate of the bus came before the trial Court and depose that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry only, the said accident has taken place. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 23. On scrupulous reading of the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it do suggest that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, three persons died. To prove the said fact, the prosecution relies upon the Inquest Panchanamas marked at Ex.P.1 and P.3 respectively. Ex.P.4 is a scene of offence Panchanama. It shows where exactly the said accident has taken place. The contents of these documents are not disputed by the defence. Ex.P.8 to 18 are the wound certificates showing sustaining of injuries by the inmates of the said bus. This fact is also not denied by the defence. Ex.P.19 is the document issued by the Medical Department i.e., the Postmortem report of one Satyanarana. He died because of the accidental injuries. Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24 are the wound certificates of the injured inmates of the bus. Some of them have sustained fractures, some of them have sustained simple injuries. So also, Ex.P.25 is the Postmortem report in respect of the person who died because of the accidental injuries. Ex.P.26 is the Motor Vehicle examination report which shows that, in both the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 vehicles there were no mechanical defects. These documents are not disputed by the defence. 24. Ex.P.28 is the important document i.e., the sketch prepared by the Investigation Officer. It shows, the said accident has taken place almost towards the northern side of the road. It shows, after causing the accident, bus went ahead upto 105 feet and lorry went ahead upto 120 feet from the scene of offence. It shows, bus was moving towards Mudagal and lorry was moving towards Nandawadi. The bus was moving on the left side of the road towards Mudagal road, whereas the lorry by covering some distance towards the right side i.e., the northern side dashed to the bus. This sketch shows, though, the accused had sufficient space towards the left side of the road towards Nandawadagi, but, even then why he drove the vehicle towards right side is not explained by him. It is fatal to his defence. Therefore, in view of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, as well as the trend of cross-examination directed to the witnesses, it can be stated that, because of the rash and negligent - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 driving of the lorry only, the said accident has taken place. Even Complainant-PW.3 has explained in his evidence that, how the said accident has taken place. If at all the driver of the KSRTC bus was at fault and there was head-on collision, the Doctor must have noticed some injuries on the drivers of both the vehicle. No such evidence is placed on record by the prosecution. If all these factual features are put together, it can be stated that, the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent in driving his lorry. Thus, because of proximate cause of rash and negligent driving by the lorry, three persons died in the accident and other inmates of the bus sustained injuries both simple and grievous. Therefore, the rash and negligent driving of lorry is duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. More so, when the drivers of the vehicle are driving vehicles on the highways, they must take all available precautions to avoid any casualty. It is the defence of the accused that, it was raining at that time. If that is so, when it was loaded with three granite weighty stones in his lorry covering the entire chassis of - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 the said lorry, he would have been more cautious to drive the lorry, instead of that, he went slightly towards the right side of the road and dashed to the said KSRTC bus on his right side. Thus, the rashness and negligence on the part of lorry driver is duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. Thus, the ingredients of Section 304A of IPC as narrated in the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court are proved in accordance with law. Hence, prosecution is able to establish that because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry only, the said accident has taken place. 25. Sofar as sentence is concerned, the learned trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, whereas, for the other offences, it has imposed fine as well as the imprisonment. The First Appellate Court has reduced the sentence from one year simple imprisonment. Sofar as the other offences are concerned, they have not be interfered. Section 304A of IPC is a serious offence. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 Learned counsel for the accused relied upon a judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish1 and would submit that, speed is not a criteria. He submits that, the driver of the lorry was driving the lorry with all precautions in a slow speed. Therefore, no rash and negligence can be attributed against him. 26. I have perused the said citation. The facts of the said case are quite different from the facts of the present case. It is a settled principle of law that, if a road is wide and open, the drivers of the vehicle can drive the vehicle as rash as they can subject to speed limits. If they anticipate any vehicle, they must take all precautions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that, it was a single road and there was no space available. 27. In accident cases, it is the driver of the vehicle to explain what made him to drive the vehicle in that manner. He has not explained anything either in his 313 statement. 1 (1998) 8 SCC 493 - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 28. The learned counsel for the accused submits that, now the accused is suffering from AIDS and now he is aged more than 65 years. He is under treatment. He placed on record the patient booklet (green booklet) issued by the hospital to show that, he is still under treatment. This fact is not disputed by the prosecution. In a case of present nature, when the accused is found guilty of committing the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and causing death of three persons, and as there is unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution through the inmates of the bus, then the minimum sentence has to be imposed. Therefore, in a case of present nature, it is the duty of the Court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regarding commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guru Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa Vs. State of - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 Karnataka2 have held in paragraphs 17, 18, 32 to 34 as under:- “17. The last plank of submission of Mr Bhat is that the appellant-accused was a young man of 22 years at the time of the occurrence and in the meantime, he has entered into wedlock and, therefore, maintaining of substantive sentence would be inapposite, and in fitness of things, it should be restricted to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may be enhanced with the stipulation that it shall be paid as compensation to the victims of the accident. 18. The aforesaid submission, in our considered opinion, requires a careful and cautious examination. What is basically sought to be argued on behalf of the appellant is that there are mitigating circumstances warranting lenient treatment. As we perceive, two aspects, namely, (i) the age of the accused at the time of the accident; and (ii) his present marital status, have been highlighted as mitigating factors. 2 2012 8 SCC 734 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 Before we dwell upon whether these two aspects should be regarded as extenuating factors to reduce the sentence in a crime of this nature in the present social context, we think it apt to refer to certain authorities in the field. 32. We may note with profit that an appropriate punishment works as an eye- opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like "flies to the wanton boys". They totally forget that the lives of many are in their hands, and the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an indecent burial by their rash and negligent act. 33. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored. In - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 Siriya v. State of M.P.14 it has been held as follows: (SCC pp. 75-76, para 13) "13. '7. ... Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.' * " 34. In view of the aforesaid, we have to weigh whether the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards the mitigating factors deserves acceptance. Compassion is being sought on the ground of young age and mercy is being invoked on the foundation of solemnisation of marriage. The date of - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 occurrence is in the month of March 2006. The scars the collective cannot be said to have been forgotten. Weighing the individual difficulty as against the social order, collective conscience and the duty of the court, we are disposed to think that the substantive sentence affirmed by the High Court does not warrant any interference and, accordingly, we concur with the same.” 29. Further, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi3 the Hon’ble Apex Court have clearly held that in a case of present nature, when there is no proper explanation offered by the accused, minimum sentence has to be imposed. In this decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has imposed a sentence of one year and fine for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the status of the accused as a patient for a serious disease of AIDS 3 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 and he was under treatment, a minimum sentence has to be imposed against him. 30. In view of the facts and circumstances so brought on record by the prosecution, so also the medical records submitted by the counsel for the accused, if the sentence imposed by the learned First Appellate Court is modified and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo the simple imprisonment for 3 months, it would meet the ends of justice. So far as other sentence is concerned, as rightly held by the trial Court and as well as the learned First Appellate Court, the said fine amount is to be maintained as it is. With this view, the aforesaid point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. However, there shall be modification of sentence as aforesaid. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition filed by the accused/ petitioner is allowed in-part. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 (ii) So far as the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act is affirmed. (iii) There shall be modification of the sentence with regard to the offence under Section 304A of IPC. (iv) The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. (v) So far as imposition of sentence for the other offences it is maintained. (vi) The accused shall surrender before the trial Court within 15 days from today and shall undergo the sentence. (vii) The learned Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law and commit him to the prison. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2114 CRL.RP No. 100212 of 2018 (viii) On committing the accused to the prison, the concerned Superintendent of Jail is directed to provide necessary best medical assistance to the accused. (ix) Intimate the Superintendent of Jail accordingly. (x) Send the operative portion of this judgment to the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court for compliance through mail. (xi) Send back the trial Court records (TCRs) along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ, VMB/CT-VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30