The court emphasized the need for a realistic sentencing policy while dealing with the offence under S.304A IPC, considering the severity of rashness, the degree of callousness, and the seriousness of the consequences.

The only point urged in this Criminal Revision is that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three months imposed on the petitioner for the offence under S.304-A I.P.C. has no justification. Alternatively it was contended that a more lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence because, the facts of the case would reveal that the motor accident described in this case was only on account of an error of judgment on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged to have a new look at the sentencing policy while dealing with offences involving S.304-A I.P.C.

2. The case against the petitioner, in short, is that he drove a jeep so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life, .through Muvattupuzha-Thodupuzha public road, from West to East, during the afternoon of 26-2-1981 and the jeep went off the road towards right at the place of occurrence and dashed against a cart which was parked on the extreme south of the road and then the vehicle moved further towards south and ranover one Moideen who was silling in the Veranda of a house on the road-side. Moideen later succumbed to his injuries. The petitioner did not dispute that he drove the vehicle at the time of accident, nor did he dispute that the jeep dashed against the cart and hit the deceased down. His version was that while he was driving his jeep behind a car, he had to overtake the car which was abruptly stopped in front of him and while overtaking the car, he noticed a bus rushing from the opposite direction; and in order to avoid a head-on-collision with the bus, he had to swerve his vehicle further to his right and then the consequences followed.

3. The trial Magistrate as well as the appellate court (Sessions Court) found that the prosecution story has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they rejectcd the defence theory as improbable. Accordingly, the petitioner was found, guilty of the offence and was therefore, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The concurrent findings based on evidence need no disturbance in this revision and the learned counsel has no contention that the findings are vitiated by any error of that degree or unreasonableness of such a dimension as would warrant interference from revisional’ court. Hence, the learned counsel made focus on the sentence alone during the time of arguments in this revision.

4. Learned counsel contended that when an offence is made punishable with imprisonment or fine, and when discretion is given to the trial court to make the choice and to determine the extent of the sentence, the normal sentence should not be a term of imprisonment. The counsel expressed concern saying that the recent trend, unfortunately, is to pass sentence of imprisonment in such cases, forgetting that no criminal intention can be attributed to the accused for such offences. In the above context, a reference was made to the observation of Beaumont, C.J. in one of the early decisions of the Bombay High Court reported in Emperor v. Khanmaliomed (AlR 1937 Bom. 96). The learned Chief Justice in that case observed thus:

“It is not part of the duty of the courts to punish with savage sentences every motorist who has the misfortune to have an accident, which results in a loss of life, even though the accident be due to an error of judgment on the part of the driver. ‘The circumstances of each case must be considered in imposing sentence. Moreover, one has to remember that driving motorcars has become an essential part of human activities and it is impossible to avoid certain number of accidents.”

The last part of the above observation does not appear to have gained preponderant approval from other High Courts. Even if there had been any justification in making the said observation in the decision in that case, it is not consistent with the present line of thinking and it must be remembered that a period of half a century has-clapsed between then and now. The highways and other public roads, in the