State Of H.P. vs Kulbhushan

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P., convicted the accused/respondent herein (for short “the

accusedâ€), for, commission, of, offence(s) constituted, under, Sections 279, 337, 338, 304ÂA, of, the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), whereas, it

recorded an order of acquittal, visÂaÂvis, the accused qua, an, offence constituted, under, Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The learned trial

Magistrate thereafter proceeded, to, sentence the accused, in, the hereinafter extracted manner:Â​

“(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ and in case of non payment of fine to undergo further

simple imprisonment for 3 months for commission of offence u/s 304Â​A IPC.

(ii) to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence u/s 279 IPC.

(iii) to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence u/s 337 IPC.

(iv) to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for commission of offence u/s 338 IPC.â€​

In an appeal carried therefrom, by the accused, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., the latter Court proceeded to

set aside the verdict of conviction, and, consequent sentence(s), hence imposed, upon, the accused, visÂaÂvis, the charges drawn against him under

Sections 279,337,338, 304ÂA IPC, but, modified, the sentence, of, fine imposed, upon him, by the learned trial Court, under, Section 304ÂA IPC. The

learned appellate Court proceeded to, qua therewith, impose upon the accused a fine of Rs.80,000/Â, and directed that, upon, deposit of the afore fine

amount, a, sum of Rs.50,000/Â being disbursed to the parents of the girl child, besides a sum of Rs. 15,000/Â, being disbursed to Smt. Anita Ahuja,

and, Rs.5,000/Â each being disbursed to Khazan Chand, Smt. Gian Kaur and Smt. Surjeet Kaur (injured), and, in default of payment of fine, the

accused was directed, to, undergo rigorous imprisonment, for, a period of six months.

The State of Himachal Pradesh, through, the instant Criminal Appeal, without seeking reversal, of, the afore verdict, on merits, as, recorded by the

learned appellate Court, hence has merely proceeded to challenge the imposition, of, the afore sentence of fine, upon, the accused. Consequently, it is

not deemed imperative, to go, into the merits of the case.

Further more, since, the accused also has not challenged the verdict recorded against him, by the learned appellate Court, thereupon, also this Court

confines itself only to test the validity of sentence of fine imposed upon him, by the learned Appellate Court, after its sustaining the verdict, of,

conviction pronounced, upon him, by the learned trial Court, visÂ​aÂ​vis, his committing, an, offence punishable under Section 304Â​A IPC.

For testing the validity, of, the afore imposed sentence of fine, it is imperative, to, allude, to, the mandate, of, Section 304ÂA IPC, provisions

whereof stand extracted hereinafter:Â​

“ Section 304ÂA IPC Causing death by negligence Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting

to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

A perusal of the afore extracted provisions underscore, that, the convicting Court is enjoined, to, visÂaÂvis the afore charged offence hence

impose, upon, the convict either punishment of imprisonment, of, either description, for a term which may extend to two years, (a) and, thereafter, the,

alternative thereto, hence imposition of fine, without any fetterings, visÂaÂvis, the quantum(s), of, sums of money, wherewithins, it, may become

validly imposed, hence upon, the convict, is, also embodied therein, (b) besides, a, further alternate discretion is vested in the convicting Court, to,

conjointly impose upon the convict both sentence(s), of, imprisonment of either description, which may extend up to two years, and, also of fine.

Consequently the convicting Court is vested, with, a statutory discretion, to, not only, impose sentence of imprisonment or the alternative thereto,

sentence of fine, upon, the convict, and, besides with a discretion, to, conjointly impose both sentence of imprisonment, and, of fine, upon, him. Since

the afore vested discretion, by, the learned appellate Court, has become validly exercised, though it making, the, impugned verdict, thereupon it does

squarely, fall within the domain of the mandate, cast, in Section 304ÂA IPC, and, (a) also when the sentence of fine is comprised, in, a sum of

Rs.80,000/Â (Rupees Eighty Thousand), is, well merited, (b) thereupon, the appeal constituted herebefore against the quantum, of, sentence of fine

imposed, upon, the convict/accused, hence, by the learned appellate Court, does not suffer, from any gross infirmity or absurdity, excepting for the

earlier hereto imposition of sentence of fine, being enhanced, from, Rs. 80,000/Â (Rupees Eighty Thousand) to a sum of Rs.2,80,000/Â (Two lacs

Eighty Thousand) (two lacs+ eighty thousand). It is also deemed imperative to further order, that, the afore imposed enhanced fine amount comprised,

in, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/Â (Rupees Two lacs), in, addition to Rs. 80,000/Â (Rupees Eighty Thousand) already imposed upon the respondent, upon, its

realization, within four weeks hereafter, shall be disbursed equally, only amongst the parents of the deceased girl child. In default, of, payment of, the

afore modified sentence of fine, the respondent shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for, one year.

In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of, alongwith all pending applications.