AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Borooah, J.—This Rule was obtained by the State for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused opposite party No. 1 Darshan Mahato, by Sri Chaklanobis, Presidency Magistrate, Fifth Court, Calcutta, on March 20, 1972, accepting his plea of guilty on charges under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 338 of the Indian Penal Code, no further penalty having been imposed under the other section. A sum of Rs. 150 out of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the opposite party No. 2 Ashutosh Gupta who was injured in the accident.
Mr. Promod Ranjan Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the accused, drove the taxi in question very rashly and negligently and hit a motor cycle causing grievous injuries to the rider of the said motor cycle, namely the opposite party No. 2 and causing him to be hospitalised for over six weeks.
Mr. Roy''s contention is that the offences with which the accused opposite party was charged and to which he had pleaded guilty are serious in nature and the punishment imposed by the learned Magistrate is wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the offences charged.
No doubt for a conviction under Sections 338 and 2/9 of the Indian Penal, Code the learned Magistrate could have imposed a more severe sentence. In dealing with the accused opposite party leniently the learned Magistrate took into consideration his poverty, his sincere repentance by pleading guilty and the fact that he had no previous convictions.
The offences to which the accused opposite party had pleaded guilty do not involve moral turpitude, he had undoubtedly committed offences which should not be treated lightly, as a careless or rash and negligent driver of a vehicle, is a menace to the members of the public who may be on the roads. But if a driver, having been involved in an accident due to rash and negligent driving, realises his mistake and prays for a chance to correct himself by pleading guilty, neither the society nor the accused driver concerned would be benefited in any way if we enhance the punishment and either send him to prison or increase the amount of fine. The poverty of the accused opposite party would not enable him to pay an Enhanced fine and so he would have to go to prison in any event. A person found guilty of rash and negligent driving for the first time is strictly speaking not a criminal in the true sense of the term. If such a person is sent to prison, he would after associating with hardened criminals come out embittered with the society.
In view of what has been stated above, we do not consider that in the interests of justice any enhancement of the punishment imposed on the accused opposite party No. 1 is called for.
The Rule is accordingly discharged.
H.N. Sen, J.
I agree.