1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2008 Shri Ravi Modeknawar, r/o H. No. 188/7, Chandegal, Xelden, Quepem, Goa. ... Applicant versus State (through the Bicholim Police Station). ... Respondent Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant/Accused and Ms. Winnie Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This revision is argued only on the point of sentence. The Applicant/Accused has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. 2 and has been ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of two months under Section 279 I.P.C., one month under Section 337 I.P.C., and three months under Section 338 I.P.C. with a rider that the said periods will run concurrently. Compensation has been ordered to be paid to the injured, namely, PW2 and PW4 in the sum of Rs.2000/- for injuries suffered by them, and in default, the Appellant/Accused has been ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of two months. 3. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant/Accused has submitted that all the offences for which the accused has been convicted are punishable either with imprisonment or with fine. He further submits that the Appellant/Accused has already undergone sentence of thirteen days from 12th December to 24th December, 2008, and considering the nature of offences committed by the Appellant/Accused the said period of imprisonment be considered as substantive sentence imposed upon the accused. Shri Bras De Sa, learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of State v. Antonio Soares(2007 ALL MR(Cri) 990) wherein the sentence imposed was one day S.I. till rising of the Court under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C., ordered to run concurrently. Shri Bras De Sa has further submitted that the Appellant/Accused is inclined to compensate the said injured in the sum of Rs.2000/- each ordered to be paid by the learned trial Court. This submission is not opposed to by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3 4. This Court in the said case of State v. Antonio Soares(supra) has stated thus:- “Sentence it is said is the most public face of the criminal justice system. A sentence imposed by the Courts should have a deterrent effect more so when accident cases are on the rise. Courts are required to ensure that whenever an accused is found guilty, he does not escape the clutches of law very lightly. Sentencing discretion has got to be exercised considering the facts of each case”. 5. In this case, PW2 and PW4 were on a motor cycle while the accused was driving a Mahendra pick-up when the accident took place. In my view, and considering the facts of the case, the period of imprisonment undergone by the accused from 12th December to 24th December, 2008, can be considered to be substantive imprisonment imposed against the accused under the aforesaid Sections. In addition, the Appellant/Accused shall compensate each of the injured in the sum of Rs.4,500/- each. A sum of Rs.4000/- has already been deposited before the learned J.M.F.C. An additional sum of Rs.4,500/- shall be deposited by the Appellant/Accused within a period of fifteen days. The Judgment and Order of the learned J.M.F.C. shall stand modified to the extent indicated herein above i.e. the period of imprisonment from 3 months is reduced to 13 days S.I. and fine enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.4,500/-. After the deposit is made, the compensation shall be paid to the injured within a further period of fifteen days. In 4 default of payment of compensation, the Appellant/Accused shall undergo S.I., as already ordered. 6. Criminal Revision Application disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD