The High Court should not interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court unless it is satisfied that the sentence is unduly lenient or grossly inadequate.

Judgment

HEGDE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High court of Judicature at Bombay in criminal review application No. 763/64 in its file. Therein the High Court not only confirmed the conviction of the appellant by the addl. chief presidency magistrate, third court, bombay under sections 304-A and 337 indian Penal Code, but enhanced the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed on him under section 304-A to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. 00.

( 2 ) BEFORE the learned presidency magistrate, the appellant was tried under two charges viz. under section 304-A Indian penal Code for causing the death of Kumari kunda Atmaram Naik by rashly and negligently driving his car in the Netaji Subhash road at about 5. 30 p. m. on February 15, 1964 and under section 337 Indian Penal code for causing hurt to Kumari Vidya atmaram Naik by that very act. The learned magistrate found him guilty under both the charges. Under section 304-A, indian Penal Code, he sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Under section 337 Indian Penal Code he sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The High Court in exercise of its revisional powers enhanced the sentence as mentioned above1. In the suo motu proceedings taken by the High Court the appellant contested the legality of his conviction. But the High Court rejected his contentions.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case is as follows : on the evening of February 15, 1924, kumari Kunda Atmaram Naik aged about 21 years and her younger sister Kumari Vidya atmaram aged about 10 years had been to the University Club House at B. Road, netaji Subhash Road, also known as marine Drive to attend some function. As there was some time for the function to commence, the two sisters decided to go to marine Drive sea face. As they were crossing the road through the pedestrian crossing, immediately to the north of B. Road, they were knocked down by the appellant who came driving his car from the south, as a result of which both the sisters were injured. They were immediately removed to the hospital. The younger sister had sustained only minor injuries whereas the elder sister had sustained fracture of the pelvis among other injuries. Consequently there was hemorrhage as a result of which she died on 17. 2. 64.

( 4 ) IT is not denied that it was the appellant who knocked down the two sisters. It is also not denied that Kumari Kunda naik died and Kumari Vidya was hurt as a result of the incident referred to earlier. Therefore, the only question for decision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that at the time of the occurrence the appellant was driving his car in a rash or negligent manner or so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. If he is guilty under section 304-A, Indian Penal code, it necessarily follows that he is also guilty under section 337 Indian Penal Code. So we shall first examine whether the conviction under section 304-A Indian Penal code is valid. Its validity was seriously challenged before us.

( 5 ) AS mentioned earlier, according to the prosecution when the occurrence took place, the two sisters were crossing the road through the pedestrian crossing marked out immediately to the north of B. Road. This fact of the prosecution case is fully supported by the evidence of P. W. 1, Kumari vidya. Her evidence that they crossed through that pedestrian crossing was not even challenged in cross-examination. Her evidence on this point is corroborated by the observations made by P. W. 5, the investigating officer who went to the scene very soon after the occurrence. He noticed a pair of tyre marks to the north of the northern pedestrian crossing (the crossing with which we are concerned) and they ended in the northern pedestrian crossing. The appellants version that the girls were crossing the