STATE (MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION) Vs. LAISRAM IBOBI SINGH S/O UDHOB SINGH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the State to enhance the sentence of fine of Rs. 5/ - passed by the First Class Magistrate, I. W. and B. against the respondent Laisram Ibobi Singh for his conviction under Section 304 -A, I. P. C.

(2.) THE case against the respondent Ibobi Singh was that on 4.3.1960 at about 12 -00 noon when the deceased Amuthoi Kabui along with P.W. 6 Ngairalungba Kabul were going on cycles along the left side of the Indo -Burmah Road towards south and had reached near Naorem Leikai, the respondent came in the opposite direction driving the Bus MNS 2364 at a high speed and knocked down Amuthoi Kabui and caused injuries on him which resulted in his death. The respondent's defence was that P.W. 6 and the deceased were driving on cycles in parallel fashion along the road and were engaged in conversation, Amuthoi Kabui being on the western side, that the respondent was driving the Bus at a moderate speed and. sounded his horn on nearing the cycles, but the cyclists paid no heed to him. Still, he swerved as far as practicable towards the western side of the road, but Amuthoi Kabui dashed against the Bus not in the front, but in the side and met with the accident which resulted in his death.

(3.) THE Magistrate did not accept the prosecution case that the respondent was driving the Bus at a high speed. But he was of opinion that there was carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondent in driving the Bus and that as spoken to by the 3 eye -witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, he drove the Bus along the wrong side of the road. Hence, he convicted the respondent under Section 304 -A, I. P. C., but sentenced him only to a fine of Rs. 5/ - "in view of the meagreness of the evidence". The learned Government Advocate argued that if the case was proved against the respondent, a fine of Rs. 5/ -was a ridiculous sentence for having caused the death of Amuthoi Kabul by driving the Bus in a negligent manner and that the learned Magistrate was wrong in awarding such a light punishment by saying that the evidence was meagre. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that if the evidence was meagre in the opinion of the Magistrate, ho should have acquitted the accused, but if he found the case proved, then it was his. duty to have given a more severe punishment.