http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/01/1987

BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  861            1987 SCR  (1)1103  1987 SCC  (1) 538        JT 1987 (1)   217  1987 SCALE  (1)135

ACT:     Indian   Penal   Code,   1860--Sections   279,   337   & 304-A--Rash  and negligent driving--Conviction  for--Imposi- tion  of sentence-Considerations for--Undue sympathy not  to be shown to accused.     Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939---Sections 89 & 112--Rash  and negligent driving-Conviction of driver for offence--Necessi- ty for imposition of stringent punishment.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent  was charged under  sections  279,  337, 304-A IPC and Sections 89(a) and 89(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act for having driven an Express Bus in a rash and negligent manner  hitting a bullock cart as a result of which  one  of the  persons traveling in the cart sustained fatal  injuries and  the other person sustained simple injuries.  After  the accident the respondent failed to secure medical  assistance to the injured person and also failed to report the accident to the police authorities.     The respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges and was convicted and sentenced to pay a total fine of Rs. 345 under all the five charges.     In the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement  of sentence,  the  High Court declined to  interfere  with  the sentence. Allowing the appeal of the State,     HELD:  (1)  The  Magistrate in utter  disregard  to  the nature of offences, particularly the one under Section 304-A IPC  and the sentences provided for them under the’ IPC  and the Motor Vehicles Act, imposed ’flea-bite’ sentences on the respondent.  This should have spurred the High Court to  not only pass appropriate strictures against the Magistrate  but also  to set right the matter by enhancing the  sentence  at least for the conviction under Section 304-A IPC in exercise of its powers under Section 377 Cr.P.C. [1106G-H] 1104     (2)  The  High Court has failed to comprehend  that  the respondent has been let off with a total fine of Rs. 345 for his  convictions  under all the five  charges.  The  reasons given  by the High Court are really nonexistent as  well  as irrelevant  ones. Here was a case where the  respondent  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

not only driven his bus in a reckless manner and caused  the death of one person and injuries to another but he had  also attempted  to  escape prosecution by failing to  report  the accident to the police authorities. [1107A-B]     (3)  Consideration of undue sympathy will not only  lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the  effi- cacy  of the criminal judicial system. The imposition  of  a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the driver in such a case and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstances is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will  unmis- takably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. [1107C-E]     (4)  The ends of justice would be met by  enhancing  the sentence  for the most serious of the charges  namely  under Section 304-A IPC to six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000  in default to undergo R.I. for two months. [1107.E-F]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 1986     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  31.1.1983  of  the Karnataka High Court in Crl. A. No. 451 of 1981     D.N. Diwede, M. Veerappa and Ashok Kumar Sharma for  the Appellant. R. Satish for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     NATARAJAN,  J.  The light-hearted and casual  manner  of disposal of the case against the respondent in C.C. No.  442 of  1980 (P.R. No. 198/80) on the file of his court  by  the Additional Munsif-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate  (First Class) Madhugiri and the refusal of the High Court of Karna- taka  to enhance the sentence of the respondent in  exercise of  its powers under Section 377 Criminal Procedure Code  in Criminal  Appeal No. 451/81 preferred by the State has  com- pelled  the State of Karnataka to approach this Court  under Article 136 1105 of the Constitution to file this Appeal by Special Leave.     The  respondent has entered appearance but has not  con- tested the appeal.     The  respondent was charged under Sections 279,337,  and 304-A Indian Penal Code and Sections 89(a) and 89(b) of  the Motor Vehicles Act for having driven an Express bus  bearing Registration No. MYT 30(36 in a rash and negligent manner at about  8.30 P.M. on 30.4.80 on the Madhugiri--Hosakere  Road and  hitting a bullock cart as a result of which one of  the persons  travelling in the cart Rangappa alias  Veeramallapa sustained  fatal  injuries and another  passenger  sustained simple injuries. After the accident the respondent failed to secure  medical assistance to the injured persons  and  also failed to report the accident to the police authorities.     The respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges and was accordingly convicted. However, in awarding sentences to the respondent  for  the  several  convictions,  the  Magistrate imposed  trivial  amounts of fines which had the  effect  of making  the  trial  and the convictions a  mere  farce.  The sentences awarded are as follows:- Offence     Sentence provided under      Sentence Awarded             I.P.C./M.V. Act ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Sec.279 IPC (Punishable with imprisonment Fine of Rs.25/-         of either description for a    i/d to undergo         term which may extend to six   S.I. for one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       months or with fine which      week.         may extend to one thousand         rupees or with both) 2. Sec.337 IPC (Punishable with imprison-   Fine of Rs.50/-            ment of either description       i/d to undergo            for a term which may extend      S.I. for twenty            to six months or with fine       five days.            which may extend to five            hundred rupees or with both. ) 3. Sec.304-A  (Punishable with imprisonment Fine of Rs.250/- IPC           of either description for a    i/d to undergo               term which may extend to two   S.I. for one               years or with fine or with     month.               both. ) 1106 4. Sec.89(a) r/w (Punishable with fine which Fine of Rs.10/- Sec. 112 Moto   may extend to one hundred     in default to Vehicles Act    rupees)                    undergo S.I. for                                                   five days. 5. Sec.89(b) r/w (Same as for Section 89(a))   Same sentence Sec. 112 Motor                                   as above. Vehicles Act     Perturbed and shocked by the callous manner in which the Magistrate  had dealt with the case, the State preferred  an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. to the High Court of Karna- taka for enhancement of sentence. The High Court, we  regret to  note has declined to interfere with the sentence on  the grounds which have no basis or relevance. The High Court was alive to the trivial nature of the sentences awarded by  the Magistrate  and has observed: "The sentence imposed  appears to  be  a  lenient one." Nevertheless, the  High  Court  has declined  to exercise its powers under Section  377  Cr.P.C. and the strange reasons given by it are as follows:-               "The  judgment of conviction and sentence  has               been  delivered  on January 30, 1981.  We  are               today  at  the fag end of January,  1983.  The               award  has been hanging over the head  of  the               accused  for  a very long time.  Which  should               have  made him undergo a lot of  mental  agony               and  torture.  It is no doubt  true  that  one               death  has taken place and injuries have  been               caused  to  one person. The  sentence  imposed               appears  to be a lenient one. Therefore,  con-               sidering the fact the appeal is pending for  a               long time and it must have caused the  accused               a  lot  of mental anxiety, we think  that  the               appeal should be dismissed with an observation               that  in  such  serious  cases  the  court  is               expected to take a serious view of the  matter               and  not to be lenient in such  matters.  With               this observation the appeal is dismissed."     The  utter  disregard  shown by the  Magistrate  to  the nature  of the offences, particularly the one under  Section 304-A I.P.C., and the sentences provided for them under  the Indian  Penal Code and Motor Vehicles Act, by imposing  what may  be termed as ’flea-bite’ sentences on  the  respondent, should  have spurred the High Court to not only pass  appro- priate  strictures  against the Magistrate but also  to  set right  matters  by enhancing the sentence at least  for  the conviction  under  Section 304-A I.P.C.  to  a  conscionable level in exercise of its powers under Section 377 I.P.C. 1107     The  High  Court has failed to comprehend that  the  re- spondent  has been let off with a total fine of  Rs.345  for his  convictions under all the five charges relating to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

death  of  one  person and the sustainment  of  injuries  by another  due to his rash and negligent driving  besides  his failure to secure medical assistance to the victims as  well as his failure to make a report to the authorities about the accident.  The  reasons given by the High Court  are  really non-existent as well as irrelevant ones. It is not as if the respondent had been charged or convicted for a grave offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and his  fate had  remained  in suspense for a long time and as  a  conse- quence  thereof, he had undergone mental agony  and  torment for  a  long period of time. Here was a case where  the  re- spondent  had not only driven his bus in a  reckless  manner and  caused the death of one person and injuries to  another but  he had also attempted to escape prosecution by  failing to report the accident to the police authorities. Considera- tions of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead  to miscarriage  of justice but will also undermine  the  confi- dence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs.250 on the driver of a Motor  Vehi- cle  for an offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and that  too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is  bound to  shock  the conscience of any one and  will  unmistakably leave  the impression that the trial was a mockery  of  jus- tice.     We are, therefore, constrained to do what the High Court should have done but failed to do viz. enhance the  sentence in the interests of justice. We, however, feel that the ends of  justice would be met by enhancing the sentence  for  the most  serious  of the charges for which the  respondent  has been  convicted viz. the charge under Section  304-A  I.P.C. Accordingly we enhance the sentence for the conviction under Section  304-A  I.P.C. to six months R.I. and  fine  of  Rs. 1,000  in default to undergo R.I. for two months.  We  leave undisturbed the other convictions and sentences.     To  the  extent indicated above the  appeal  will  stand allowed. The respondent shall forthwith be taken into custo- dy to serve out the sentence. A.P.J.                                                Appeal allowed. 1108