Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its power under Section 377 CrPC and enhanced the sentence for the conviction under Section 304-A IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000.

Summary

Krishna alias Raju, a bus driver, was convicted of rash and negligent driving under IPC sections 279, 337, 304-A and Motor Vehicles Act sections 89(a) and 89(b) after his bus struck a bullock cart, causing one death and one injury. The magistrate imposed only nominal fines totaling Rs.345. The State appealed under Section 377 of the CrPC for enhancement of the sentence. The Karnataka High Court declined to interfere, citing the appellant's mental agony due to the pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not exercising its power under Section 377 and that the original sentence was a miscarriage of justice. It enhanced the sentence for the 304-A conviction to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000, leaving the other convictions unchanged, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in refusing to enhance the sentence under Section 377 CrPC.
Whether the magistrate's sentence for offences under IPC 304-A and related provisions was unduly lenient and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Whether consideration of undue sympathy can justify a lenient sentence in cases of death caused by negligence.
What is the appropriate sentence for a conviction under Section 304-A IPC for death caused by negligence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 377
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 279, s. 304-A, s. 337
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 89(a), s. 89(b)

Subjects

rash drivingnegligent drivingdeath by negligencesentence enhancementSection 304-ACriminal Procedure Code Section 377Motor Vehicles Actundue sympathyrigorous imprisonmentfine

Judgment

STATE OF KARNATAKA A
v.
KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU

JANUARY 2 l, 1987
B
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]

~ Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 279, 337 & 3{)4-A~Rash
and negligent driving-Conviction for-Imposition of sef!{ence~
Considerations for-Undue sympathy not to be shown to ace.used.

- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Sections 89 & l 12-Rash and negli-
gent driving-Conviction of driver for offence-Necessity for imposition
of stringent punishment.

The respondent was charged under sections 279, 337, 304-A. IPC
and Sections 89(a) and 89(h) of the Motor Vehicles Act for having
.D
driven an Express Bus in a rash and negligent manner hitting a bullock
cart as a result of which one of the persons travelling in the cart
sustained fatal injuries and the other person sustained simple injuries.
After the accident the respondent failed to secure medical assisf!lnce lo
the injured person and also failed to report the accident to the police
authorities.
E
The respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges and was cqn-
victed and sentenced to pay a total line of Rs. 345 under all the live
charges.

- In the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence,
the High Court declined to interfere with the sentence.
F

Allowing the .appeal of the State,

HELD : (I) The Magistrate in utter disregard to the nature of
offences, particularly the one under Section 304-A. IJ'C and the sent-
ences provided for them under the !PC and the Motor Vehicles Act,
imposed 'flea-bite' sentenc.es on the respondent. This should ~v.e spur-
red the High Court to not only pass appropriate strictures against the
Magistrate but also to set right the matter by enhancing the sentence at
least for the conviction under Section 304-A IPC in exercise of its powers
under Section 377 Cr.P.C. [1106G-IJ]
I-!

1103
'
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.

A (2) 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. The reasons given by the High Court are really non-
existent as well as irrelevant ones. Here was a case where the respon-
dent 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 attemped to
B escape prosecution hy failing to report the accident to the police
authorities. [1107A-B]

c
(3) Consideration of undue sympathy will not only lead to miscar-
riage of justice but will also undermine the efficacy of the criminal
judicial system. The imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the
driver in such a case and that too without any extenuating or mitigating
'
A -•
«-=

circumstances is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will -t
unmistakably lea~·e the impression that the trial was a mockery of
justice. [1107C-E]

(4) The ends of justice would be met by enhancing the sentence
D for the most serious of the charges namely under Section 304-A !PC to
six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo R.I. for two
months. [1107·E-F]

CRIMINA!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ·"'
No. 653 of 1986
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 31. I. 1983 of the Kamataka
High Court in Crl. A. No. 451 of 1981

D.N. Diwede, M. Veerappa and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the
-
Appellant.
F
R. Salish for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

NATARAJAN, J. The light-hearted and casual manner of disposal
G of the case against the respondent in C.C. No. 442 of 1980 (P.R. No.
198/80) on the file of his court by the Additional Munsif-cum-Addi-
tional Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Madhugiri and the refusal of
the High Court of Kamataka to enhance the sentence of the respon-
dent in exercise of its powers under Section 377 Criminal Procedure
Code in Criminal Appeal No. 451/81 preferred by the State has com-
H pelled the State of Kamataka to approach this Court under Article 136
STATE OF KAR. '· KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU [NATARAJANI ll05

• of the Constitution to file this Appeal by Special Leave.

The respondent has entered appearance but has not contested
the appeal.
A

The respondent was charged under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A
~ Indian Penal Code and Sections 89( a) and 89(b) of the Motor Vehicles B
Act for having driven an Express bus bearing Registration No. MYT
3066 in a rash and negligent manner at about 8.30 P.M. on 30.4.80 on
the Madhugiri-Hosakere Road and hitting a bullock cart as a result of
• ), which one of the persons travelling in the cart Rangappa alias Vee-
ramallapa sustained fatal injuries and another passenger sustained
simple injuries. After the accident the respondent failed to secure
medical assistance to the injured persons and also failed to report the
c
t' accident to the police authorities.

The respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges and was accord-
ingly convicted. However, in awarding sentences to the respondent
for the several convictions, the Magistrate imposed trivial amounts of D
fines which had the effect of making the trial and the convictions a
mere farce. The sentences awarded are as follows:-

Offence Sentence provided under Sentence Awarded
~ I.P.C./M.V. Act
E
l. Sec.279 !PC (Punishable with imprisonment Fine of Rs.25/-
... of either description for a
term which may extend to six
i/d to undergo
S. I. for one
months or with fine which week.

1 may extend to one thousand
rupees or with both)
,'-. Sec.337 !PC (Punishable with imprison-
ment of either description
Fine of Rs.50/-
i/d to undergo
F

for a term which may extend S.I. for twenty
to six months or with fine five days.
which may extend to five G
hundred rupees or with both.)
3. Sec.304-A (Punishable with imprisonment Fine of Rs.250/-
IPC of either description for a i/d to undergo
term which may extend to two S.I. for one
years or with fine or with month.
H
both.)
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A
-l. Sec.89(a) r/w
Sec. 112 Motor
Vehicles Act
(Punishable with fine which
may extend to one hundred
rupees)
Fine of Rs. 10/-
in default to
undergo S.I. for
five days.
•
5. Sec.89(b) r/w (Same as for Section 89(a)) Same sentence
Sec. 112 Motor as above.
Vehicles Act ~
B

Perturbed and shocked by the callous manner in which the Magis-
trate had dealt with the case, the State preferred an appeal under
Section 377 Cr. P. C. to the High Court of Kamataka for enhancement /~
of sentence. The High Court, we regret to note has declined to
interfere with the sentence on the grounds which have no basis or
c relevance. The High Court was alive to the trivial nature of the sent- "t
ences awarded by the Magistrate and has observed: "The sentence
imposed appears to be a lenient one." Nevertheless, the High Court
has declined to exercise its powers under Section 377 Cr.P.C. and the
strange reasons given by it are as follows:-
D
"The judgment of conviction and sentence has been
delivered on January 30, 1981. We are today at the fag end
of January, 1983. The award has been hanging over the
head of the accused for a very long time. Which should
have made him undergo a lot of mental agony and torture.
E It is no doubt true that one death has taken place and
injuries have been caused to one person. The sentence im-
posed appears to be a lenient one. Therefore, considering
-
r·
the fact the appeal is pending for a long time and it must
have caused the accused a lot of mental anxiety, we think
that the appeal should be dismissed with an observation
F that in such serious 'cases the court is expected to take a
serious view of the matter and not to be lenient in such
matters. With this observation the appeal is dismissed."

The utter disregard shown by the Magistrate to the nature of the
offences, particularly the one under Section 304-A 1.P.C., and the
G sentences provided for them under the Indian Penal Code and 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 'r-
pass appropriate strictures against the Magistrate but also to set right
matters by enhancing the sentence at least for the conviction under
Section 304-A l.P.C. to a conscionable level in exercise of its powers
H under Section 3771.P.C.
STATE OF KAR. v. KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU (NATARAJANJ 1107

The High Court has failed to comprehend that the respondent A
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 sustain-
ment of injuries by another due to his rash and negligent driving be-
sides 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 B
reasons given by the High Court are really non-existent 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 C
.,,.. 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 o; the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly D
pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs.250 on the
driver of a Motor Vehicle for an offence under Section 304-A I.P.C.
and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is
bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave
the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice.
E
We are, therefore, constrained to do what the High Court should
have done but failed to do viz. enhance the sentence in the interests of
justice. We, however, feel that the ends of justice would be met by
,enhancing the sentence for the most serious of the charges for which
the respondent has been convicted viz. the charge under Section 304-A

r
I.P.C. Accordingly we enhance the sentence for the conviction under F
Section 304-A I.P.C. to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default
to undergo R. I. for two months. We leave undisturbed the other con-
victions and sentences.
f
To the extent indicated above the appeal will stand allowed. The
respondent shall forthwith. be taken into custody to serve out the G
sentence.

A.P.J. Appeal allowed.