- (1.)This is a revision petition filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence passed on the respondent in Criminal Case No. 445 of 1965 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Hassan. The respondent was charged with having committed an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also of ;in offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Charges under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act were framed and he pleaded guilty to both the charges. The learned Magistrate convicted him of both the charges and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. He also sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 25/-for the offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(2.)Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, has contended that the sentence passed by the Court below is grossly disproportionate to the offence. He contends that the petitioner who is the owner of the car drove the car in a crowded street rashly and negligently and caused the death of Ameer, a boy of 8 or 9 years, the sentence of fine awarded is unduly lenient and the learned Magistrate ought to have imposed substantive sentence of imprisonment in the case.
(3.)Sri Tarakarum, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (accused), has submitted that the sentence of fine imposed on the respondent is not at all inadequate. Considering the circumstances of the case, he contends that the learned Magistrate was justified in passing such a sentence. He cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court in Alamgir v. State of Bihar, AIR1959 SC 436 , 1959 CriLJ527 , 1959 Supp(1 )SCC464 , [1959 ]Supp1 SCR464 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that the question of sentence is normally within the discretion of the trial Judge. It is for the trial Judge to take into account all relevant circumstances and decide what sentence would meet the ends of justice in a given case. The High Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to enhance such sentence under Section 439 Cr. P. C. Hut this jurisdiction can be properly exercised only if the High Court is satisfied that the sentence imposed by the trial Judge is unduly lenient or that in passing the order of sentence, the trial Judge has manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts. He has also cited before the Emperor v. Khan Mohamed Sher Mohamed, AIR 1937 Bom 96, a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court. In that case, Beaumont, C. J., has stated that the mere fact that human life is lost due to negligent driving of a motor car does not justify the Court in passing a deterrent sentence, if the loss of life could not have been reasonably anticipated by the Accused. In considering the question of enhancement of sentence their Lordships state, that one has to consider whether the rash and negligent act of the accused showed callousness on his part as regards the risk to which he was exposing other persons. The severity of the sentence imposed depends to a great extent on the degree of callousness which is present in the conduct of the accused. In that particular case, the trial Court had convicted the accused of an offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. and imposed a fine of Rs. 150/-. The State moved for enhancement of the sentence and their Lordships after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application of the State for enhancement.