Judgment :- In this Criminal Revision Petition the accused challenges the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Courts below for the offence under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed is only a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The prosecution version of the incident is as follows :- The accused drove goods vehicle bearing registration No. KLO 3001 along the Poonthura-Beema Pally public road from south to north in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. When it reached near Valiyavilakom Veedu, the lorry hit one Barnabas, who was walking along the western foot path of the road from north to south. On account of the lorry hitting Barnabas, he fell on the road and the vehicle ran over him causing his instantaneous death. The accused did not stop vehicle there nor did he care to render medical aid to the injured. The accused made his escape from the place on the said lorry itself. PW 1 who was walking along with the deceased immediately went to the police station and lodged Ext. P1 complaint. 3. In order to prove the prosecution version of the incident P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the accused no evidence, either oral or documentary was let i. After considering the above evidence the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, that it hit Barnabas and Barnabas died as a result of the lorry running over his body. It has also been found that the accused did not stop the lorry to give any help to the injured. Accordingly he was found guilty of the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under S. 304A he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned Magistrate further suspended the driving licence of the accused for a period of one year. His conviction and sentence were challenged before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1984. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dt. 1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned Magistrate further suspended the driving licence of the accused for a period of one year. His conviction and sentence were challenged before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1984. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dt. 25-1-1985 also came to the conclusion that the vehicle KLO 3001 was driven along the public path way in a manner so negligent as to endanger human life, that as a result of such driving of the vehicle the death of Barnabas was caused and that it was the appellate who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident viz. 10.30 p.m. on 3-2-1981. In this view the sentence passed by the Court below was confirmed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. As there is no evidence to that effect, he prays for an acquittal of the accused. I do not find my way to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. 5. P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the eye-witnesses to the incident P.W. 1 was walking by the side of the deceased from north to south along the western foot path of the road. The vehicle driven by the accused was running in the opposite direction, that is from south to north. According to this witness the vehicle entered the foot-path dashed against his brother-in-law who was walking on his left side. On account of the impact Barnabas fell on the ground and the vehicle ran over him. This witness further states that he could save himself because he moved to the western extremity of the footpath. This witness had given the first information statement Ext. P1. In Ext. P1 he has only given the name and registration number of the vehicle. He had not given any mark for identifying the accused. But he has stated before Court that the accused in the box was the person who drove the vehicle. 6. P.Ws. 2 to 4 were walking behind P.W. 1 and the deceased. They fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1. According to these witnesses also, the vehicle was driven by the accused and it was coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. 6. P.Ws. 2 to 4 were walking behind P.W. 1 and the deceased. They fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1. According to these witnesses also, the vehicle was driven by the accused and it was coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was on account of this high speed, rashness and negligence that it entered the footpath and hit Barnabas. They also stated that the vehicle ran over Barnabas when he fell down as a result of the impact. These three witnesses also categorically swear before court that the accused in the box was the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. 7. P.W. 5 is the owner of lorry. In chief examination he has stated that the accused was the driver on 3-2-1981 and that he was the person who drove the lorry at the time of the occurrence. In cross-examination also this witness reiterated the above fact. 8. The evidence discussed above gives no room to doubt the fact that the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The courts below have rightly accepted the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 5 to come to the conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle. I find no ground to take a different view in the matter. It therefore follows that the conviction entered by the Courts below does not call for any interference. 9. For the offence under S. 304A the accused has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- only. This sentence is too meagre. It calls for no interference. 10. Before parting with the case I wish to express my concern in awarding only a sentence of fine for the offence under S. 304A of the Indian Penal Code. True that the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine or with both. A tendency is seen exhibited by the trial Magistrates in avoiding substantive imprisonment to offenders who are found guilty of the said offence. If persons driving vehicles inculcate a feeling that they can get away by passing some money as fine even in cases where reckless driving results in the deaths of innocent victims, the deterrent effect of sentencing policy disappears and it would tend those drivers to continue their reckless driving. If persons driving vehicles inculcate a feeling that they can get away by passing some money as fine even in cases where reckless driving results in the deaths of innocent victims, the deterrent effect of sentencing policy disappears and it would tend those drivers to continue their reckless driving. By this it should not be misunderstood that in appropriate cases Magistrate shall have no discretion in imposing a sentence of fine alone. The legislative in Section 354(4) of the Code of Crl. Procedure has manifested its intention that for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months unless reason for awarding a lesser sentence is recorded. This provision makes it clear that sentence of imprisonment is the rule and sentence of fine is only exception. In a country like ours where the roads are impoverished and the traffic system illorganised, roads full of pedestrians including school going children who are untrained in traffic rule's, the drivers of motor vehicles should always bear in mind the hazards involved in reckless driving. A fear of consequences for him if he causes death of another is an impelling psychological impulse to drive carefully. If he entertains a belief that the only consequence would be to pay a few rupees alone, he may not mind taking a chance of resorting to rash driving. More than a quarter of a century ago, this court had struck a note of caution in State of Kerala v. Ramaswami Iyer, 1961 Ker LT 769 that a sentence of fine for an offence under S. 304A I.P.C. should not be made a rule but it should be an exception. This has now got the legislative mandate as seen in S. 354(4) of the Criminal P.C. In the above circumstances the learned trial Magistrate will do well in avoiding imposition of sentence of fine alone for offence punishable under S. 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The result, therefore, is the Criminal Revision Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.