Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence Of KSRTC Employee Convicted For Rash Driving, Endangering Life Of Others

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while granting relief to petitioner Devendrappa H also said,

"The sentence of conviction shall not affect his career and shall not be treated as a remark for his employment with KSRTC."

As per the prosecution, on 14.8.2014, when the petitioner was driving KSRTC bus, he caused an accident by dashing against a private bus. The occurrence of the accident was attributed to rash and negligent manner of driving by the petitioner.

The trial court believed the testimonies of the eye witnesses and held the petitioner guilty in 2019. The appellate court in August 2021, confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Advocate A. Keshava Bhat appearing for the petitioner submitted that if the way in which the accident occurred is seen, it can be said that it was just a collision while negotiating a turn in the ghat section and probably two buses collided with each other because of the width of the road being very narrow. Thus, he prayed that a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be just subjected to fine with an observation that the conviction is not a stigma to his employment.

Prosecution opposed the plea saying when there is no scope for appreciation of evidence, another view cannot be taken with regard to accident and there is no scope for reducing the quantum of sentence also.

Court findings:

The bench noted that evidence shows that the accident occurred when two buses were taking turn in a curve. It said, "However, because of consistent findings of both the courts below, I do not find it necessary to re-appreciate the evidence because there is no perversity in them."

Referring to sections 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way) and 337 (Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC, both of which provide for either sentencing the accused with imprisonment or with fine or with both, the bench held,

"Therefore having regard to the sentencing structure provided in both the sections, I am of the opinion that the sentence may be confined to fine only instead of subjecting the petitioner to imprisonment."

It also relied on the Apex court judgement in the case of Rajbir vs State of Haryana [AIR 1985 SC 1278] and the Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of G.T. Ravindra vs State [Crl Rev 2280/2012], wherein it was said that conviction and sentence would not affect the employment of the accused therein.

Following which the court held, "In this view, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is confined to a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 279 IPC and Rs.500/- to the offence under section 337 IPC with default sentence as prescribed by the trial court. The sentence of conviction shall not affect his career and shall not be treated as a remark for his employment with KSRTC."

Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.1145 of 2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34

Date of Order: January 17, 2022

Appearance: Advocate Keshava Bhat A for petitioner; Advocate K.S.Abhijith for respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order