ORDER : The case of the prosecution is that on 28-2-2004 at about 4.15 p.m. on National Highway 48, near New Nethravathi Bridge at Bantwal Mooda village, Bantwal Taluk, the accused was driving lorry bearing No.KA 19 A3199 from Kalladka towards B.C. Road, in a rash and negligent manner. He overtook the lorry on the extreme left side. While taking so, he dashed against tourist Ambassador car bearing No.KA 19/3596 which was driven by one Udaya. There were passengers namely, C.W.1, C.W.2, C.W.6, C.W.14 and one Dayananda Nayak traveling in the said car. As a result of which, the car capzised and fell into a ditch. The lorry proceeded further and again dashed another Ambassador car bearing No.KA193606. It was driven by C.W.3 and the passengers C.W.4, C.W.5, C.W.23 and one Narayana Prasanna were travelling in the said car. The driver of the ambassador car sustained grievous head injuries and thereby succumbed to the injuries on the spot and CW.1 and C.W.14 sustained simple injuries and C.W.2 and C.W.6 sustained grievous injuries and Dayanand Nayak succumbed to the head injury. Based on a complaint being lodged a case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC Section 56 read with Section 177 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act and Section 190(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. The accused was convicted and sentenced. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal which was rejected. Hence, the present petition. 2. Sri P.B. Umesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would restrict his arguments so far quantum of sentence is concerned and that he would not make any submission so far as merits of the case is concerned. 3. I have heard him, so far as sentence is concerned. He pleads that the accused was 28 years of age when the accident occurred. Presently he has a family to maintain. Hence, a lenient view be taken. On the other hand, learned State Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that as a result of the accident three deaths have occurred and number of persons have been injured. That the sentence awarded by the trial court is minimal. That the accused is liable to undergo higher sentence than what is awarded by the trial court. 4. On the other hand, learned State Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that as a result of the accident three deaths have occurred and number of persons have been injured. That the sentence awarded by the trial court is minimal. That the accused is liable to undergo higher sentence than what is awarded by the trial court. 4. On hearing counsels, I’am of the view that keeping in mind, the young age of the accused and the manner in which the accident has occurred, the number of injuries and the position of the petitioner, it would be just and appropriate to modify the sentence as awarded by the trial court. The trial court has awarded simple imprisonment for a period of one 1 year 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. 5. It is pleaded that the petitioner herein is a driver with limited source of income. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and necessary that the fine amount be enhanced to a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Out of the same, Rs.10,000/- each shall be paid to each of the legal representatives of the deceased in the said accident. The imprisonment for a period of one year and six months would appear to be on a higher side. For the reasons stated, the imprisonment is restricted to a period of one year. 6. Hence, while upholding the conviction under Section 304A of IPC the sentence is modified. The petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the trial court. The trial court shall disburse Rs.10,000/- each to the legal representatives of each of the three families. The conviction and sentence for other offences awarded by the trial court is undisturbed.