(Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)
K. Jagadish ______________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Karnataka & Anr. ________________________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1447/2014, decided on July 10, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant stood convicted by the trial court for commission of offences under Section 279, 337 and 304 A IPC and Section 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Sections 304A and 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 337 of IPC and simple imprisonment for 1 month under Section 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
3. Appeal was preferred against the judgment and order which was dismissed. Against that, revision was preferred before the High Court but that was also dismissed.
4. Hence, the present appeal by way Special Leave Petition had been preferred.
5. This Court passed an order on 1.7.2013 to the following effect:
“Heard.
The petitioner has surrendered to custody as directed by this Court. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf submits that the petitioner is ready to compensate the widow and the minor children left behind by the deceased further with a view to persuade this court to reduce the sentence awarded to him. He has instructions to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to prove his bonafide in that regard. He is also ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards travelling land legal expenses of the widow left behind by the deceased as we are inclined to implead her as party respondent No. 2. We accordingly direct the addition of Smt. Kusum Prakash Hunumansagar wife of late Shri Prakash Hanumansagar resident of 28, II Main, III stage Manjunathanagar Bangalore-560010 as party respondent No. 2.
The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- towards travelling and litigation expenses of respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount notice shall issue to the newly added respondent for her appearance either personally or through an authorised agent in this court returnable on 13th August, 2013. Dasti in addition, is also permitted.
We direct that subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- in this court and furnishing bail bonds in a sum of “Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the petitioner shall be enlarged from custody and sentence awarded to him shall remain suspended.”
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been deposited and that has been withdrawn by the respondent No. 2- the complainant. It is stated at Bar that it is in addition to the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- that was awarded in the death claim case in the MACT matter in Lok Adalat settlement.
7. In view of the aforesaid order of depositing Rs. 4,00,000/- that was passed by this Court and also the fact that the appellant was directed to surrender vide order dated 10.5.2013, he surrendered on 19.6.2013. Then was released on bail on 1.7.2013.
8. He has undergone sentence for about 2 weeks and in addition, he has paid the aforesaid amount of 4 lakhs. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone in view of the monetary compensation of 4 lakhs that has been paid by the appellant and withdrawn by the respondent No. 2 and fine of 2,000/- imposed has also been deposited.
9. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment is accordingly modified.
10. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1447/2014
K. Jagadish _______________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Karnataka & Anr __________________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 10-07-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Kanungo, Adv.
Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
12. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
