JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.(Oral) : Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case. 2. Respondent was prosecuted and challaned under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court after conclusion of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved direct nexus between the death as well as rash and negligent driving of the respondent and thus, observed that the case against him stands duly proved. However, while dealing with the matter relating to quantum of punishment, it admonished the respondent by giving the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reason for extending this benefit was that the respondent was first offender and in the opinion of the trial court being a young man, it will be in the interest of justice if he is ordered to be released under Section 3 of the Act and it was ordered accordingly. 3. State has filed this appeal under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of sentence instead of the respondent having been admonished under Section 3 of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent has not filed appeal against the judgment passed by the trial court wherein he was held to be guilty of having committed offences under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, although he could have done so. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General in support of this appeal urged that looking to the manner in which the accident took place and to the fact that how the respondent fled from the scene of occurrence after the head of deceased-Kiran Kumar, mechanic had been crushed under the rear tyre of the Truck No.HIH-3014,which was being driven by the respondent, resulted in his instantaneous death shows the oallous manner in which the accident had taken place as well as in-human attitude on the part of the respondent. It was further urged in support of this appeal by the learned Additional Advocate General that the punishment under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is already too meagre and by further diluting it, after having found the respondent guilty for both the offences for which he was prosecuted would not be in consonance with the requirements of law. 6. 6. So far the evidence of this case is concerned, it is consistant pointing towards the guilt of the respondent having committed offences in question while driving a motor vehicle i.e. Truck No. HIH-3014 on a public highway on 9th November, 1988 endangering human life which resulted in causing death of Kiran Kumar- mechanic, who was working with Arun Kumar-complainant (PW-1). Deceased - Kiran Kumar was a pillion rider along with PW-1 Arun Kumar and in the area of Sukki Bauri near Pakka Bharoh, respondent was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident in question and consequent death of Kiran Kumar - deceased. It has come in evidence that PW-1 complainant was on his way from Pakka Bharoh to Hamirpur on a two wheeler (Scooter) PCH-7734, when the respondent caused the accident in question. So far place where the accident took place, the width of the road is 25 feet. The vehicle in question i.e. Truck, was got mechanically examined by the police during the course of investigation from mechanic - Kararn Chand (PW-5), who had mechanically examined the vehicle in question and found no defect, his opinion in this behalf is there on the record as contained in Ex.PW-5/A. No suggestion has been put to him that there was any mechanical defect or otherwise so as to mitigate the accident in question. In this context it may be appropriate to point out that vehicle in question was examined after the accident when the same had been taken into possession. When it was parked in the Police Station, even at that time blood stained mud was found attached to the said truck which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B and recovery of the same stands duly proved from the statement of PW-2 Ajay Dogra. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-driver has urged that in the event of appeal being allowed, the respondent may not be sent to jail looking to the time gap involved in this case. It was urged in support of this plea mat the accident is stated to have taken place on 9th November, 1988, more than 8 1/2 years ago and the respondent should be given a chance to reform himself. It was urged in support of this plea mat the accident is stated to have taken place on 9th November, 1988, more than 8 1/2 years ago and the respondent should be given a chance to reform himself. After this accident nothing adverse has been attributed to him, besides this he being the first offender as well as the sole bread winner of his family needs to be given a chance to reform himself so that he is in a position to be in the main stream of the society. Another plea raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent was that all the incriminating materials had not been put to him inasmuch as that the vehicle on which the deceased was pillion rider was in fact a scooter, but in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was put as motor cycle as such according to him the order passed by the trial court calls for no interference in the present proceedings. By referring to a few decisions of this court, Shri Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that this is a fit case where the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and alternatively, it was pleaded that at the most his client may be burdened with compensation. 8. In the present case as a result of accident in question a precious life has been lost, that too when on the public highway the respondent was driving the truck in question in a rash and negligent manner. Above all, he fled away From the scene of occurrence. In these circumstances showing of undue sympathy in my opinion will lead not only to the failure of justice but miscarriage thereof as well. This also under-mines the efficacy of the criminal justice and the system which administers the same. There is no circumstance either for extenuating or mitigating made out for taking lenient view in the present case, especially in the face of conduct of the respondent after the accident in question. This also under-mines the efficacy of the criminal justice and the system which administers the same. There is no circumstance either for extenuating or mitigating made out for taking lenient view in the present case, especially in the face of conduct of the respondent after the accident in question. It may also be appropriate to mention here that in order to invoke public confidence in the administration of criminal justice, it is necessary that wrong doer should not be let loose as has been done in the present case in the facts of this case so as to give an impression that one can go scots free after committing the crime as has been done in the present case and thus, making the mockery of system as a whole. In this behalf in taking this view, I am guided by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 861, Stale of Karnataka, Appellant v. Krishna alias Raju, Respondent, wherein it has been held as under:- 6. The utter disregard shown by the Magistrate to the nature of the offences, particularly the one under S.304-A I.P.C., and the sentences provided for them under the Penal Code and the 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 appropriate stricu-tures against the Magistrate but also to set right matters by enhancing the sentence at least for the conviction under S.304-A, I.P.C. to a conscionable level in exercise of its powers under S, 377 I.P.C. 7. 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 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 arc really non-existence as well as irrelevant ones. The reasons given by the High Court arc really non-existence 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 consequence thereof he had undergone mental agony and torment for a long period of time. 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. Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence 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 Rs.250/- on the driver of a Motor Vehicle for an offence under S.304-A I.P.C. and that to without any extenuating ormitigaling circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice." 9. May be that some benefit could be given to the respondent on account of the plea of time gap as well as being the first offender, as urged by Shri Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, but the fact remains that the conduct of the respondent after the accident in question is such which has dis-entitled him of such a benefit. If any authority for taking this view is required, reference can usefully be made to the decision of a learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1993(3) Crimes 168, Balbir Singh v. Slate of Punjab. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. 11. Now remains the question of imposing sentence upon the respondent after he had been held guilty for having caused the accident in question due to his rash and negligent driving on a public highway by endangering human life resulting in the death of deceased-Kiran Kumar, mechanic. Here the time gap between the date of accident and infliciting of sentence may have some relevance. Here the time gap between the date of accident and infliciting of sentence may have some relevance. On an over all examination of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is felt that interest of justice would be met if the respondents convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and it is ordered accordingly. The respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender for undergoing the sentence imposed. -