Criminal Appeal No 653 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 3111983 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl
A No 451 of 1981 DN 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 CC No 442 of 1980 PR No 19880 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 45181 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 279337 and 304 A Indian Penal Code and Sections 89a and 89b of the Motor Vehicles Act for having driven an Express bus bearing Registration No MYT 3036 in a rash and negligent manner at about 830 PM on 30480 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 IPCMV Act 1
Sec279 IPC Punishable with imprisonment Fine of Rs25 of either description for a id to undergo term which may extend to six SI for one months or with fine which week
may extend to one thousand rupees or with both 2
Sec337 IPC Punishable with imprison Fine of Rs50 ment of either description id to undergo for a term which may extend SI for twenty to six months or with fine five days
which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both  3
Sec304 A Punishable with imprisonment Fine of Rs250 IPC of either description for a id to undergo term which may extend to two SI for one years or with fine or with month
both  1106 4
Sec89a rw Punishable with fine which Fine of Rs10 Sec
112 Moto may extend to one hundred in default to Vehicles Act rupees undergo SI for five days
Sec89b rw Same as for Section 89a 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
PC 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
PC 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 IPC 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 IPC to a conscionable level in exercise of its powers under Section 377 IPC 1107 The High Court has failed to comprehend that the re spondent has been let off with a total fine of Rs345 for his convictions under all the five charges relating to the 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 Rs250 on the driver of a Motor Vehi cle for an offence under Section 304 A IPC 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 IPC
Accordingly we enhance the sentence for the conviction under Section 304 A IPC to six months RI and fine of Rs 1000 in default to undergo RI 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
APJ Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent was charged under sections 279 337 304 A IPC and Sections 89a and 89b 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
PC 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 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 RI and fine of Rs1000 in default to undergo RI for two months
1107E F