IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2015  OF 2008

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.4483  of  2008)

Puttaswamy …Appellant

Vs.

State of Karnataka & Another   …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant in this appeal was convicted for

an offence punishable under Sections 279 and

304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the

death of a seven year old girl on account of

his     rash and negligent driving of his

tractor. The appeal from the said order and

conviction and sentence having been dismissed

by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7

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.

8

(MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated: 11.12.2008

9