1 CRA 485-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2010 Prakash Ranchod Raut ..Applicant Aged : 33 years, resident of Dahanu Agar, New Marathi School, Taluka : Dahanu, District : Thane. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT . This Revision is directed against applicant's conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.1000/-, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one day with a fine of Rs.10/- imposed by 2 CRA 485-2010 the learned Magistrate on the three counts. The applicant had preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Court at Palghar, District Thane. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the Appeal and maintained conviction as well as sentence. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 3. As far as conviction of the applicant is concerned, the learned Magistrate on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly convicted the applicant and there is no perversity. However, the learned Counsel for the applicant is right in submitting that the reasons given for the exemplary sentence in para 51 of the Judgment are not sound. The learned Magistrate has posed the question for himself as to whether he should show leniency to the applicant. He then observed that at Dahanu, 3 CRA 485-2010 Auto Rickshaw drivers were driving vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and the Court was flooded with several cases of accidents caused by negligent driving by Auto Rickshaw drivers. The learned Magistrate observed that if the Courts were to show leniency after a person was guilty of causing death in an accident, it would result in a wrong message being passed on to the Society, a Society which has faith only in the judicial system. Therefore, in order to fortify the faith of a common man in judicial system, the learned Magistrate felt that exemplary sentence was called for. 4. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not at all go into the question of sentence in his Judgment. 5. The learned Magistrate should have seen that the factors which are required to be considered while imposing the sentence are whether the convict had any previous Criminal 4 CRA 485-2010 history; & whether the convict was such an age that he could correct himself if released without heavy sentence being imposed on him. Instead, the learned Magistrate condemned the applicant by inflicting maximum sentence prescribed under the Indian Penal Code for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was 29 years old at the time of the incident. The accident had occured when he was driving his Auto Rickshaw for earning his livelihood. He was not a spoil brat of some rich man driving a posh car recklessly. The applicant was himself injured in the accident, since Auto Rickshaw over turned. The applicant had no previous conviction. In view of this, it was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to sentence the applicant of imprisonment for two years. Ends of justice would be met, if the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months with a fine. 5 CRA 485-2010 6. In view of this, Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act is maintained. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for 45 days. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.5000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentence for offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. imprisonment for a day with a fine of Rs. 6 CRA 485-2010 10/- is maintained. All the substantive sentences should run concurrently. The applicant is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to the victim's mother which shall be adjusted towards Compensation, if any, ordered of the M.V.Act. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)