<p>Bengaluru: Trial magistrate sentences should not be increased when accused persons file appeals, more so when state authorities do not contest the quantum of sentence, the Karnataka high court has ruled in a recent judgement. Justice V Srishananda said this while restoring a magistrate court's order on sentence in an accident case reported from Haveri.</p><p>In the case at hand, Gousmodin, a lorry driver from Haveri, was held guilty in an accident that happened on March 29, 2012. The truck had knocked down Yashwant, a pedestrian, near Kanavalli Cross on the Haveri-Guttal road. The pedestrian succumbed to injuries.</p><p>On November 23, 2017, the magistrate court convicted him under IPC sections 279, 304(A), and section 134(A) (B) of Motor Vehicles Act. The court sentenced him to two months imprisonment and slapped a fine ranging from Rs 500 to Rs 1,000. On his appeal challenging the sentence, the Sessions Court on April 2, 2019 upheld the conviction and enhanced the imprisonment under section 304(A) to one year. Gousmodin moved the High Court, contending that the state had not challenged the original sentence. </p>.No coercive action against Sonu Nigam over Kannada song row: Karnataka High Court tells cops.<p>Justice Srishananda noted that if the state considered the magistrate's sentence insufficient, they should have filed an appeal. The court said that the appellate courts must notify accused persons about the potential sentence enhancements and provide an opportunity to respond. The court observed that the sessions court (the First Appellate Court) had not warned the accused about a possible sentence enhancement or heard arguments regarding sentence inadequacy. “Without exceptional circumstances and state challenge, the enhancement wasn't warranted,” the court said.</p><p>The court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness and witness testimonies supporting the prosecution. However, while partly allowing the appeal, the court reversed the enhanced sentence under section 304(A). The court further directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court. </p>
<p>Bengaluru: Trial magistrate sentences should not be increased when accused persons file appeals, more so when state authorities do not contest the quantum of sentence, the Karnataka high court has ruled in a recent judgement. Justice V Srishananda said this while restoring a magistrate court's order on sentence in an accident case reported from Haveri.</p><p>In the case at hand, Gousmodin, a lorry driver from Haveri, was held guilty in an accident that happened on March 29, 2012. The truck had knocked down Yashwant, a pedestrian, near Kanavalli Cross on the Haveri-Guttal road. The pedestrian succumbed to injuries.</p><p>On November 23, 2017, the magistrate court convicted him under IPC sections 279, 304(A), and section 134(A) (B) of Motor Vehicles Act. The court sentenced him to two months imprisonment and slapped a fine ranging from Rs 500 to Rs 1,000. On his appeal challenging the sentence, the Sessions Court on April 2, 2019 upheld the conviction and enhanced the imprisonment under section 304(A) to one year. Gousmodin moved the High Court, contending that the state had not challenged the original sentence. </p>.No coercive action against Sonu Nigam over Kannada song row: Karnataka High Court tells cops.<p>Justice Srishananda noted that if the state considered the magistrate's sentence insufficient, they should have filed an appeal. The court said that the appellate courts must notify accused persons about the potential sentence enhancements and provide an opportunity to respond. The court observed that the sessions court (the First Appellate Court) had not warned the accused about a possible sentence enhancement or heard arguments regarding sentence inadequacy. “Without exceptional circumstances and state challenge, the enhancement wasn't warranted,” the court said.</p><p>The court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness and witness testimonies supporting the prosecution. However, while partly allowing the appeal, the court reversed the enhanced sentence under section 304(A). The court further directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court. </p>