Supreme Court of India
SANJAY COLAROversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 686
- Decided
- 21 April 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that while the conviction stands, the sentence of imprisonment must be set aside and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act extended, with the appellant required to pay compensation to the deceased's heirs.
Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Colaro, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for causing a fatal road accident by rash driving. He was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine, which he appealed through the criminal appellate hierarchy up to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that, given the lack of malicious intent, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (or Section 360 CrPC) should be extended, with compensation paid to the deceased's heirs instead of incarceration. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but set aside the imprisonment, extending probation and ordering the appellant to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation to the ten legal heirs. The Court also directed the District Legal Services Authority to assist the heirs in opening bank accounts and disbursing the amount, and to file a status report within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to an appellant convicted of death caused by rash driving under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
- Whether compensation to the deceased's legal heirs can replace the term of imprisonment awarded to the appellant.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the extension of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant for causing a road accident, resulting in the death of the pedestrian. Headnotes† Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Benefit under – Death by rash by the appellant resulting in the death of the pedestrian – Trial court convicted the appellant u/ss.279 and 304A with six months imprisonment and fine – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant – Interference with: Held: Not called for –
Subjects
Driving in rash and negligent mannerRoad accidentCompensation in lieu of benefit extended to accusedDistrict Legal Services AuthorityUnderprivileged sections of societyAgricultural workersDaily-wage labourers
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2558 : 2025 INSC 686
Sanjay Colaro
v.
State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal No. 2133 of 2025)
21 April 2025
[Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the extension of benefit under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant for causing a road accident,
resulting in the death of the pedestrian.
Headnotes†
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Benefit under – Death by
rash driving on a public way – Rash and negligent driving by the
appellant resulting in the death of the pedestrian – Trial court
convicted the appellant u/ss.279 and 304A with six months
imprisonment and fine – High Court upheld the conviction
and sentence awarded to the appellant – Interference
with:
Held: Not called for – However, with regard to the sentence imposed,
benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Sentence
by which appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months set aside – Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded
in favour of the surviving legal heirs of the deceased in lieu of the
benefit extended to the appellant – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.279,
304A. [Paras 11-13]
List of Acts
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Penal Code, 1860; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Driving in rash and negligent manner; Road accident; Compensation
in lieu of benefit extended to accused; District Legal Services
Authority; Underprivileged sections of society; Agricultural workers;
Daily-wage labourers.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2559
Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2133 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLRP No. 323 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Vikalp Sharma, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
V.N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Varun Varma, M.
Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Md. Apzal Ansari,
Shiv Kumar, Ms. Vaishnavi, Prakash Jadhav.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant
against the final judgment dated 21.11.2022 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No. 323 of 2013
wherein the High Court has dismissed the revision petition preferred
by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge &
JMFC, Ramanagara1 in CC No. 431 of 2008 under Section 279 and
304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.2
3. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2008, at
about 11 a.m. near a place called Ramadevara Pada on Bengaluru-
Mysuru Road, the accused-appellant has been alleged to be driving
his motorcar bearing registration no. KA-03-MC-2926 in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed into one Sri Chaluvappa, a pedestrian.
Due to the said accident, the said Chaluvappa sustained multiple
injuries on his body and succumbed to the same before he was taken
1 Trial Court
2 IPC
2560 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the hospital. The accused was charged of offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
4. The appellant was convicted under the above-mentioned provisions
vide judgment dated 21.11.2011 and was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
failing which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara District which was dismissed
vide order dated 25.02.2013 and the judgment passed by the Trial
Court was affirmed.
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate court, the
appellant filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the said revision
petition and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the
appellant, while also granting 45 days to the appellant to surrender
before the Trial Court.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before us.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
8. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
has submitted that the said unfortunate incident is admittedly a
case of road accident without any malicious intent on the part of the
appellant and that no constructive purpose shall be served by making
the appellant go through the incarceration period. It was submitted
that, instead, the appellant should be extended the benefit of either
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 19733 and the appellant be made to pay
reasonable compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased which
would actually benefit the family members of the deceased person.
9. Being inclined towards accepting the suggestion made by the
learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court vide order dated
03.02.2025, had directed Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State of Karnataka to obtain instructions
with respect to the details of the legal heirs of the deceased and
also about their current status.
3 Cr.P.C.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2561
Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka
10. As such, pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2025, the State of
Karnataka has filed an affidavit dated 07.03.2025 providing the
details of the legal heirs of the deceased. There are ten surviving
legal heirs of the deceased as described in Annexure-1 to the said
affidavit and their details are reproduced as below:
S. Family Member Age Relation Status
No.
1 Sri Chaluvaiah @ - Deceased -
Chaluvappa
2 Smt. Chikkamma Died Wife -
3 Sri Ramakrishnaiah 64 Son Agriculture, Basavanapura,
9611664601 yrs. Ramanagara Taluk &
district
4 Smt. Jayamma 62 Daughter Widow, Labour work,
yrs. Bangalore City
5 Sri Devaraju 60 Son Labour Work,
yrs. Basavanapura,
Ramanagara Taluk &
district
6 Smt. Gowramma 58 Daughter Widow, Labour Work,
yrs. Sunnagatta, Village,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara district
7 Sri. Narayanappa 56 Son Agriculture, Shivanagara,
9845351940 yrs. Bangalore
8 Smt. Sushilamma 54 Daughter Labour Work, Vaderahally,
yrs. Ramanagara Taluk &
district
9 Smt. Kamalamma 52 Daughter Widow, Labour Work,
9980006480 yrs. Basavanapura,
Ramanagara Taluk &
district
10 Smt. Ammayamma 50 Daughter Widow, Labour Work,
yrs. Vidyanagara, Ramanagara
Town
11 Sri Nagesh 48 Son Provision Store, Kengeri,
9986401222 yrs. Bangalore city
12 Smt. Yashodamma 46 Daughter Widow, Labour Work,
yrs. Danayakanapura,
Ramanagara Taluk & district
2562 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find
no reason to interfere with the concurrent conviction against the
appellant. However, with regard to the sentence imposed, we deem it
appropriate to extend to the appellant the benefit under the Probation
of Offenders Act and set aside the sentence by which he has been
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further, we
award a total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs
only) in favour of the surviving legal heirs of the deceased in lieu of
the benefit extended to the appellant and the appellant shall duly
conform with the payment of such compensation.
12. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with the Trial Court within
eight weeks from today. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh) is to be paid to each of the ten legal heirs of the
deceased, as described in table referred to above.
13. Further, since it is apparent that the legal heirs of the deceased
are mostly agricultural workers or daily-wage labourers belonging
to underprivileged sections of the society, we believe that it will be
beneficial if some assistance is extended to the legal heirs by the
District Legal Services Authority in receiving & disbursing the said
amount. As such, we direct the Member Secretary of the District
Legal Service Authority at Ramanagara,4 after due verification of
the legal heirs, to assist them in getting their bank accounts opened
and ensure that the due amount is remitted to their respective bank
accounts expeditiously.
14. Lastly, the Member Secretary, DLSA, Ramanagra is directed to file a
status report on the above-directed aspects before this Court within
three months of the receipt of this order.
15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of in terms of the above
directions.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
4 DLSA
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Driving in rash and negligent manner"Sign in to search