K.Subramanian vs State by Inspector of Police, N-1 Traffic Investigation Team, Chennai

N. Dhinakar, J.—The petitioner, a driver by profession, was tried before III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, for offences

punishable under Sections 304-A IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the allegation against him is that at 10.30 a.m. on 22.8.2000, he

drove a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-248 in a rash and negligent manner from north to south and ran it over Yellappan, who was walking

on the left extremity of the road and thereby caused his death. After investigation was taken up, the crime came to be registered and later, after

completion of the investigation, the final report was filed. The petitioner appeared before the court and pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate

convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- with a default sentence of two

months'' rigorous imprisonment, u/s 304-A IPC. u/s 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/- with a further direction that in default of payment of fine, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner preferred

an appeal and contended before the appellate court that the trial Magistrate was severe in punishing the petitioner and he ought to have been let off

with a fine since Section 304-A IPC does not contemplate punishment of imprisonment and fine for the offence. The appellate court rejecting the

argument, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced and in lieu of

reduction in the sentence of imprisonment, he can be asked to pay an additional fine amount, pleading that if the petitioner is sent to jail, he and his

family members will be put to great hardship. I have heard the prosecution on the contention.

I am unable to accept the above plea of the petitioner. In Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that bearing in mind the

galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the

nature of the offence u/s 304-A IPC in a lighter vein and while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death

by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence and that the driver must always keep in his mind

the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle, he cannot escape from

jail sentence and the courts can play a vital role for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles, by imposing

adequate sentence.

On going through the materials and after giving my anxious consideration, I am unable to hold that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six

months imposed upon the petitioner for the offence u/s 304-A IPC, is excess. I, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the

petitioner u/s 304-A IPC. While confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner u/s 304-A IPC, I feel that the petitioner,

though can be convicted u/s 184 IPC, cannot be sentenced in view of Section 71 IPC, which mandates that the offender shall not be punished with

a severe punishment than the court, which tries him, could award for any one of such offences, where anything is an offence falling within two or

more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being, by which offences are defined or punished. I, therefore, set aside the sentence of

payment of fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the petitioner u/s 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, while maintaining his conviction under that Section.

In the result, the revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above.