JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---The accused in this case who was the driver of motor truck No. MYJ 3915 stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner-accused was found guilty by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a term of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under section 304-A, I.P.C. He was also found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for both the counts. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Against his conviction the accused filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Sangli. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the sentences and fine imposed on the accused. 3. I have heard Shri Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused as also Shri patil, the learned Public Prosecutor. Shri Pradhan has strongly contended that the evidence of the only witness Gosavi is rather vague on the question regarding the speed of the truck. He is also uncertain with regard to the manner in which the incident took place. 4. The trial Court as also the Appeal Court have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case and in particular the panchnama of the scene of offence. The trial Judge has also mentioned in the judgement that he had visited the scene of offence and noticed the extensive damage that was caused to the road where the guard stone was uprooted as also the Babul tree, two in number, which had been extensively damaged. The trial Judge has also mentioned in the judgement that he had visited the scene of offence and noticed the extensive damage that was caused to the road where the guard stone was uprooted as also the Babul tree, two in number, which had been extensively damaged. On a consideration of the material before me, it is evident that the manner in which the truck was being driven the petitioner-accused itself would constitute rash and negligent driving and having regard to the fact that the death of a young woman was resulted, it would not be possible to uphold the contention advanced by Shri Pradhan to the effect that the petitioner-accused had exercised due care and caution. Having regard to the fact that the accused was driving a truck, he was certainly under the obligation to manoeuvre the vehicle in such a manner as would be in consonance with its moving safely on a public road. The fact that the truck skidded off the road, that it uprooted the guard stone, that it extensively damaged the trees near the road, are all circumstances sufficient to indicate that it was moving at a relatively high speed and the accused was not in a position to control its movement. It has also come in evidence that it was raining, the road was slippery and that the incident took place around a turn. The accused was obliged, under the conditions to observe additional caution, more so when he was operating a truck in which he was wrongly carrying the deceased and others. In having displayed callous disregard for safety, the accused has acted both rashly and negligently. Under these circumstances, the conviction of the accused-petitioner by the lower courts will have to be upheld. 5. Shri Pradhan has further pointed out that considerable time has now elapsed since the incident. The accused is a poor Driver. If he were to be sent to jail, it would also possibly result in grave and great hardship to himself and his family. There is considerable substance in this submission. In the course of the arguments, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused, stated that if the petitioner had to undergo sentence in jail, he would lose his job on the one hand and secondly that it would result in very great economic harship to him and to his family. There is considerable substance in this submission. In the course of the arguments, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused, stated that if the petitioner had to undergo sentence in jail, he would lose his job on the one hand and secondly that it would result in very great economic harship to him and to his family. These consequences are inevitable but are to some extent avoidable because this is not a type of offence which would justify conferment of the accused in jail since he has not proved a danger or menace to society and if that be the case, the punishment awarded to him should at the same time not have unduly harsh consequence. Modern thinking in the filed of Criminal Jurisprudence has indicated that a criminal should as far as possible be made to pay back to society for damage caused and atone for his wrongful acts. It is in the light of these considerations and on the facts of the present case that I am of the view that a substantial fine of Rs. 5,000/-, which would on the one hand require the accused to have to work additionally hard to secure this money and at the same time make him repay to the family of the deceased in some small manner for the loss an damage caused to her, would meet the ends of justice. Basically, the aspects regarding compensation are to be looked into by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, but a Criminal Court is not to be unmindful of these principles. Accordingly I direct that the fine under sections 304-A, I.P.C. be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- and the amount if recovered be paid over for the benefit of the minor child of deceased Smt. Gosavi. 6. In this unfortunate incident valuable life has been lost which is undoubtedly irreplaceable and the minor child has been deprived of the love and guidance of a mother. While the law requires that the accused be fairly and adequately dealt with for his acts which resulted in the death, it is equally fair and necessary that some retribution be offered to the person whom the deceased has left behind. An impersonal view of the matter therefore, would not serve the ends of justice, it requires benevolent application of law to suit the circumstances. An impersonal view of the matter therefore, would not serve the ends of justice, it requires benevolent application of law to suit the circumstances. The trial Court will ascertain the best manner it which the amount could be utilised preferably for the education and welfare of the child and adequate steps be taken to ensure that the money is utilised for the purpose for which it has been earmarked. The trial Court will accordingly report back to this Court within a period of not more than six months as to the manner in which the directions contained in this judgement have been complied with. 7. I, therefore, direct that the sentence of nine months' R.I. imposed on the accused-petitioner be set aside and that the fine of Rs. 300/- imposed on the accused-petitioner for the offence under section 304-A, I.P.C. be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The fine of Rs. 300/- imposed on him for the offences under sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. is, however, maintained. As far as the second head of charge under section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- is also maintained. 8. It has come on record that one Sushila Gosavi has lost her life in this unfortunate incident. As directed earlier, out of the fine, if recovered, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the legal guardian of the minor child of the deceased by the trial Court after ascertaining the identity of the legal guardian and after ensuring that the amount in question will in fact be used for the benefit of the minor child. 9. In the result, subject to the above modifications, the Revision Application stands dismissed. 10. Shri Pradhan has made a request that a period of three months be granted to the petitioner for depositing the enhanced amount of fine in the trail Court. The accused-petitioner is accordingly granted three months time to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court. In the event of the amount of fine not being deposited within the prescribed time, the Revision Application to stand dismissed without any modification. Order accordingly. -----