Imposing Nominal Sentence Of A Few Hundred Rupees Would Encourage Rash & Negligent Drivers Without Caring For Traffic Rules Or Human Life: Karnataka HC

The Bench noted that the Prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the ambulance driver (accused) which resulted in the death of the driver of another car and grievously injured three others. Therefore, sentencing him by imposing only a fine would not be proper.

A Single Bench of Justice Umesh M Adiga observed, “If such an accused is dealt with by imposing with nominal sentence of fine of few hundred rupees, then it would be injustice to the society as well as victims of accident. It would encourage negligent rider/drivers of vehicle to drive or ride their vehicles in rash and negligent manner without caring for traffic rules or value of human life. Therefore, sentencing him by imposing only a fine is not proper. It is trite law that sentence shall not be too harsh or nominal, but shall be just and reasonable.”

Advocate R.Sanjith represented the petitioner, while CGC TC Krishna appeared for the respondents.

The trial Court had held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the ambulance driver and convicted him of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC along with a fine.

The High Court had to determine whether imposing a fine in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment was justifiable.

Reiterating the trite law that sentence should be proportionate to the offence committed, the Court explained that the accused caused the death of the car driver and grievously injured others as well. Therefore, going by the gravity of the offence, the Court upheld the decision of the trial court calling it neither too harsh nor too nominal.

The Court stated, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not fit case to give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and imposition of nominal fine amount to the accused/revision petitioner.”

“The trial Court has considered all the materials available on record and rightly held that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of ambulance by its driver…It is well reasoned findings and not calls for interference by this Court in the Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: S. Santhosh v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:15558)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates R.Sanjith, C.S.Sindhu Krishnah and Alex John Pulimood

Respondents: CGC TC Krishna; Advocates H.Subhalekshmi, S. Krishnamoorthy S and Nirmal S

Click here to read/download the Order