Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 448 (KER)

Vincent Puthoor v. M. R. Suresh Kumar S/o. Raman

2012-05-22

P.S.GOPINATHAN

body2012
Judgment: Revision petitioner is the brother of the victim who lost her life in a road accident that occurred at 4.45 PM on 6-8-1997 along the Thrissur -Kanjani public road. Regarding the incident the 1st respondent was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 4-45 PM on 8-8-1997, the first respondent drove a mini bus bearing registration No. KL 8-C 180 from west to east along Thrissur -Kanjani road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and knocked down Lilly, sister of the petitioner, aged 50 years, while she was waiting along the northern side of the road and as a result Lilly sustained severe injuries to which she succumbed at 5-35 PM at West Fort Hospital, Thrissur where she was rushed to soon after the accident. 3. The case was registered on the basis of a First Information Statement which was marked as Ext.P1 given by PW1. PW9, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur West Police Station investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. 4. The first respondent pleaded not guilty. Therefore he was sent for trial. On the side of prosecution Pws1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. The first respondent took a defence of total denial. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, the first respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively for the above said offences. It is submitted that against the conviction and sentence no appeal was preferred by the first respondent. The brother of the victim now assails the inadequacy of the sentence in this revision. 5. I have heard Adv. Sri. Johnson. P. John, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv. Sri. Manulal appearing for the first respondent as well as the Govt. Pleader. Since the first respondent had not assailed the conviction, I find that it is not necessary to go into the evidence regarding the conviction. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent advanced an argument that the trial court confined the sentence to fine after taking into account that there is very weak evidence. Pleader. Since the first respondent had not assailed the conviction, I find that it is not necessary to go into the evidence regarding the conviction. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent advanced an argument that the trial court confined the sentence to fine after taking into account that there is very weak evidence. Persuaded by anxiety for rendering justice I have gone through the evidence on record. In support of the prosecution, the evidence of Pws1 and 4 were relied upon. The evidence of PW1 would show that the deceased was standing along the northern side of the road. The bus was driven from west and knocked down her. PW4 would also attribute negligence against the first respondent and stated that the deceased was knocked down while she was standing along the northern side of the road. Of course, at one point he would depose that the deceased was knocked down while crossing. Ext.P5 scene mahazar prepared by PW9 would show that the tar road at the spot of occurrence was having a width of 5.3 metres and that the accident was at 80 cms towards south from the northern tar end. That would show that the deceased had not at all crossed the road but she was along the northern side of the road. The evidence of Pws1, 2 and 4 would show that the place of occurrence is a bus stop. It is a common practice that passengers waiting for bus used to move to the tarred road, sometimes due to non availability of road margin. Sometimes, in their anxiety to fetch the bus, they may move to the road. Those who are on wheels should be cautious and take care of such instances. Since the spot of occurrence is at the bus stop, the first respondent should have been at a low gear and should have anticipated that there may be persons even crossing the road at the bus stop. The evidence on record would show that the first respondent failed to take such care that a prudent driver ought to have. I find little reason to come to a conclusion that the trial court had anyway gone wrong in appreciating the evidence or arriving at a finding of guilty. It did not appear that because of the weakness of the evidence the trial court confined the sentence to fine. I find little reason to come to a conclusion that the trial court had anyway gone wrong in appreciating the evidence or arriving at a finding of guilty. It did not appear that because of the weakness of the evidence the trial court confined the sentence to fine. The first respondent was then aged 24 years. He had not stated any good reason for not awarding any substantive sentence. The sentence awarded by the trial court is only a flee-bite sentence. The trial court has miserably gone wrong in confining the sentence to fine of Rs.4,000/- for causing death of lady by the negligent driving. Admittedly for offence under Section 304 A IPC, the imprisonment is for two years or fine or both. Section 354(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for one year or more, but the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reason for awarding such sentence. The trial court ignored the statutory mandate. It has not shown any good reason to confine the sentence to fine. It is a well settled principle that the punishment shall be according to the nature of the offence, intention, age of the accused, the totality of the circumstances in which the offence is committed and the injury to the individual or society. There shall be a balancing between the theories of deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. Of the above four theories, deterrence is usually regarded as the main function of punishment. As regards the wrong doers, the sentence shall be an example. As against the intending wrong doers it shall be a warning. Flee-bite sentence would make no reflection either on the wrong doer or on society. It will ridicule the entire system of administration of criminal justice. It is the duty of the court to award the correct sentence. In an identical case, the apex court, in State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna @ Raju (AIR 1987 S.C.861) had condemned the practice of awarding flee-bite sentence. It is to be borne in mind that year after, road traffic accidents as well the number of persons losing their life on road is shooting up. Determent sentence alone would work to give warning to the intending wrong doers. Undue sympathy may not work. Krishna @ Raju (AIR 1987 S.C.861) had condemned the practice of awarding flee-bite sentence. It is to be borne in mind that year after, road traffic accidents as well the number of persons losing their life on road is shooting up. Determent sentence alone would work to give warning to the intending wrong doers. Undue sympathy may not work. The trial court had throughly gone in confining the sentence to fine. Therefore, I find that in exercise of revisional powers vested on this court, interference in the sentence is absolutely necessary. Taking into account of the entire facts and circumstances and that the incident occurred more than 14 years back, I find that a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed for offence under Section 304 A IPC would meet the ends of justice. No separate sentence for offence under Section 279 IPC is warranted. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While modifying the sentence awarded by the trial court, the first respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 304 A IPC. In default of payment of fine the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The fine imposed by the trial court for offence under Section 279 IPC is set aside. The first respondent is directed to surrender before the trial court within one month for undergoing the sentence. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.