ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. Leave granted. 2. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the State in this case is that the High Court was not right and justified in setting aside the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed by the trial court on the respondent by merely imposing a substantial amount of fine. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Krishna, (1987) 1 SCC 538 and State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar, (2002) 3 SCC 738 . 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the sentence and confined it to imposition of fine. He drew our attention to the following observations of the High Court made in the impugned order: "It is seen that the accused was aged 23 years at the relevant time and it is submitted at the Bar that the accused has got married and has to take care of his family members also. There are no bad antecedents against the accused. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and other relevant factors, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused for the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. However, a substantial fine be imposed on the accused in this regard." 4. We are of the view that it is appropriate that the High Court considers the matter afresh as regards sentence alone in the light of the decisions aforementioned and then pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that may be placed before the High Court. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider afresh the question of sentence alone, in view of what is stated above. 6. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Appeal allowed.