In this appeal the appellant has challenged the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge Jr.Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Hassan, and the subsequent orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court maintaining the companyviction under Sections 279 and 304 A and the sentence in respect of the companyviction under Section 304 A, I.P.C. During the hearing of this appeal, at the admission stage, learned companynsel for the appellant informed the Court that the matter had been settled between the parties and a companypromise petition had been executed between the appellant and the companyplainant.
The appeal from the said order and companyviction and sentence having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant moved in revision before the High Court.
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.
In revision, the Karnataka High Court, while companyfirming the companyviction, set aside the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code but maintained the companyviction 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.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
The appellant in this appeal was companyvicted 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.
On such submission, the companyplainant 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 companyld at all be companypounded since the same is number companyered by the provisions of Section 320 I.P.C. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, number only in companynection with companypounding of offences punishable under 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.
