ORDER : 1. The present petitioner was tried by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C. at Devanahalli (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) in C.C. No. 87/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the IPC”) and was convicted for all the three alleged offences and was sentenced accordingly by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29-08-2009. Challenging the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2009 before the Court of the Fast Track Judge, Devanahalli, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Sessions Judge's Court”) which also, after hearing both side, by its judgment dated 22-09-2010, while confirming the conviction for all the three alleged offences as held by the Trial Court, set aside the order of sentence ordered for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC observing that, since the accused (petitioner herein) was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC, no separate sentence is required to be ordered for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. On the other hand, it confirmed the conviction of the accused for all the three offences and also the sentences ordered for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC. It is challenging the said judgments of conviction and order on sentence, the accused (petitioner) has preferred this revision petition. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on 26-10-2007, at about 2:30 p.m. on National Highway No. 207, between Devanahalli-Sulibele Road, near Channahalli Gate, the accused being the driver of motor Car bearing registration No. KA-08/M-126, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a motorcycle which was coming from the opposite direction and thus, caused the road traffic accident. In the said road traffic accident, the rider of the motorcycle Sri. - Rajanna @ Muniraju sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the spot and the pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and thereby has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC. 3. In the said road traffic accident, the rider of the motorcycle Sri. - Rajanna @ Muniraju sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the spot and the pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and thereby has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty in the Trial Court, the prosecution, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, examined seven witnesses from PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-7(a) and closed its side. On behalf of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked. 4. After hearing the arguments from both side, the Trial Court convicted the accused for all the three alleged offences, i.e. for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. Since the order on sentence passed against the accused for the proven guilt under Section 279 of the IPC has already been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge's Court, the quantum of sentence ordered for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC does not remain to be considered. 5. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC. It also ordered the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. It is this order on sentence for the proven guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC, the accused (petitioner) has confined the scope of the present petition. 6. The respondent-State is represented by the learned State Public Prosecutor. 7. It is this order on sentence for the proven guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC, the accused (petitioner) has confined the scope of the present petition. 6. The respondent-State is represented by the learned State Public Prosecutor. 7. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records. 9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the accused (petitioner herein) in his brief argument submitted that, since it is a revision petition, he would not dispute the finding of both the Trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge's Court, holding the accused guilty of the alleged offences, but he would only plead that, the quantum of sentence ordered is on the higher side and the same be reduced. In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thangasamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 16 SCC 235 and a judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2587 of 2011 dated 08.09.2016. 11. Learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State is present, who submits that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the order on sentence ordered by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge's Court for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC is excessive compared to the gravity of the proven guilt of the accused under the facts and circumstances of the case? 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the two judgments cited supra, submitted that after the accident, the driver of the Car, i.e. the accused did not flee from the scene of offence, but remained there till the injured were shifted to the Hospital. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the two judgments cited supra, submitted that after the accident, the driver of the Car, i.e. the accused did not flee from the scene of offence, but remained there till the injured were shifted to the Hospital. He submitted that the accused also left the vehicle in the spot itself, enabling the Police to draw the panchanama on the spot and to seize the vehicle on the very same day. He further submitted that the accused is the sole bread winner in his family having a large number of dependents upon him and that he had no antecedents of any criminal cases against him including the alleged violation of traffic rules. Learned counsel for the accused further submits that, in a similar case involving more number of deaths and more casualties, this Court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months, as such, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment which is exorbitant and excessive requires to be reduced. 14. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. It should be neither for namesake nor excessive or exorbitant. What is proportional is a matter in every case. It has to be considered and assessed taking into the stock of the facts and circumstances of each of the case. 15. In VijayKumar's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle involved in the accident was a passenger Bus and the nature of the road traffic accident was a collision against a tractor, resulting in the death of three persons and several of the inmates of the Bus as well as the Tractor sustaining simple and grievous injuries. The Trial Court, after convicting the accused before it for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC and under Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, had sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC; and also for payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC; and also for payment of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. This Court, after hearing both side though rejected the revision petition filed by the accused who had challenged his conviction for the alleged offences, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. 16. In Thangasamy's case (supra), the offences alleged and conviction ordered was for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC. The vehicle involved was a Government passenger Bus and the accident had resulted in the death of four persons. After conviction, when ultimately the accused approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, a request was made before the Hon'ble Apex Court for reducing the sentence. In that regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court re-emphasised its policy on sentencing in the following words: “84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have evolved certain principles the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have evolved certain principles the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” While making the said observation, it noticed that, the Trial Court had already been considerate in awarding the sentence of only four months' imprisonment for each count of the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and only a fine of Rs. 100/- for each account of the offence under Section 337 of the IPC and Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC. As such, it observed that, reduction of the sentence is not warranted in the circumstances of the case and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 17. Placing the above two judgments, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner emphasised that in the above two cases relied upon by him, the sentence ordered for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC did not exceed six months of simple imprisonment. 18. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the cases before the Court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and circumstances of each of the cases corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the Court must borne in mind of the cardinal principle that, the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant. 19. Keeping the said principle in mind, when the facts in the case on hand are analysed, the sentence of imprisonment ordered for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC is one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo two more months' simple imprisonment. For the proven guilt punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, as already observed, the sentence ordered was two years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo two more months' simple imprisonment. For the proven guilt punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, as already observed, the sentence ordered was two years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said two years' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC is the maximum punishment allowed for Section 304A of the IPC. It is not that the maximum punishment should not be ordered by the Trial Court. However, while ordering on the quantum of the sentence, the circumstances of the case are required to be considered. 20. In the instant case, it is stated that even after the accident, the accused, who was the driver of the offending vehicle did not flee from the place, but he still remained there and made himself available to the investigating agency to proceed further in the matter. Secondly, it is further stated that, he also assisted in ensuring immediate medical treatment to the injured in the accident. Thirdly, it is also stated that, he was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident and is the sole breadwinner in his family. Further, there are no materials placed before the Court, showing any antecedents of violation of any traffic rules earlier. 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the sentence of ordered for both the offences punishable under Section 338 of the IPC and Section 304A of the IPC is on the higher side, which can be called as excessive, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, it is only for the said limited extent of reducing the quantum of sentence for the proven guilt, to bring it to a reasonable punishment which is proportionate to the proven guilt, the interference by this Court in the impugned judgments is required. 22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. 22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C. at Devanahalli, in C.C. No. 87/2008 dated 29-08-2009 and further confirmed by the Fast Track Court, Devanahalli, inCri.Ap.61/2009 at 22-09-2010 against the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC, the order on sentence alone is modified as below: (a) For the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year ordered by the Trial Court is reduced and confined to three months' simple imprisonment and the fine amount and default sentence remains unaltered. (b) With respect to sentence ordered for the proven guilt punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years' simple imprisonment which is ordered by the Trial Court to six months' simple imprisonment, however, enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. The default sentence for payment of fine remains unaltered. (c) Barring the above, there are no other modifications carried out in the impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge's Court. 23. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records forthwith.