- (1.)AGGRIEVED by the lower appellate Court interfering with the sentence passed by the trial Court on the respondent in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304a of the I. P. C. this appeal has been preferred by the State.
(2.)THE learned Government Pleader Shri Siddagangaiah for the appellant-State, at the outset, submitted that the trial Court had convicted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergone simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and in respect of the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC, the respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and as regards the offence punishable under Section 304a of the IPC is concerned, the trial Court, upon conviction of the accused, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court in respect of all the aforesaid offences and the only change brought about by the lower appellate Court was in respect of the sentence passed for the offence punishable under Section 304a of the IPC inasmuch as the lower appellate Court, while maintaining the fine imposed upon the respondent, modified the substantive sentence from six months R. I. to 28 days S. I. and the said period was set off against the custodial period by taking the aid of Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by the lower appellate Court interfering with the sentence of six months r. I. imposed by the trial Court, the State has come up in appeal.
(3.)SINCE both the Courts below have sustained the conviction of the respondent in respect of the offences with which he was charged under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a of the IPC in connection with the respondent having driven the vehicle CTW 5234 on 6. 4. 1991 in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a hillock on the right side of the road and thereby 25 passengers, who were in the vehicle driven by the accused, sustained injuries apart from the mother of the bridegroom also succumbing to the injuries later in the hospital, it is not necessary to go into the said aspect of the matter in view of the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction of the respondent for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the only focus will be with regard to the interference by the lower appellate Court as far as the sentence of six months imposed upon the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 304a of the IPC.