The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sentence imposed must be commensurate with the crime committed, and various factors such as the nature, gravity, manner, and circumstances of the offense, the personality of the accused, character, antecedents, and other mitigating circumstances should be considered while imposing a sentence.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Criminal Appeal No.32-Cr.A/10 of 2012 whereby the conviction and sentence dated 25/30.08.2012 awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, in a Criminal Case No. 6/2 of 2011, has been modified.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.09.2010 Bhagnal Coach No.HP-64-9097 was coming on its route from Manwa to Solan. At about 9.20 a.m., when the said bus reached on the curve between Phagu and Bhant, accused Sanju came driving scooter No.HR-02G-7357 from Rajgarh side with his father Prem Chand as pillion rider. It was further alleged that on seeing the scooter coming from the opposite direction the driver of the bus stopped the bus but the accused, who was driving the scooter in a very high speed on the wrong side hit his scooter against the stationary bus. In this accident, accused Sanju and his father suffered injuries and both of them were removed to C.H., Rajgarh for treatment. The police was also informed about this accident and on the basis of statement made by one Shri Durga Singh, a passenger of the bus, formal case vide FIR No.91/10 was registered against the accused in Police Station, Rajgarh. The police investigated the case. The father of the accused succumbed to his injuries and died in C.H., Rajgarh. It was also alleged that this accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused.

3. After completion of investigation, the police forwarded the accused to the Court to stand trial under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC and section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused was summoned by the trial court and notice of accusation was put to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led its evidence and at the close of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded his innocence. However, no evidence was led by the accused in his defence.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 337 IPC and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but found him guilty under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and convicted and sentenced him. Under Section 279 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and under Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, accused-respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, who, though upheld the conviction of the respondent under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and while sentencing the accused, the sentence of fine was maintained, however, the substantive sentence awarded to the respondent under Section 304-A IPC was reduced till rising of the Court. The substantive sentence which had been awarded by the learned trial Court was also modified by imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. It is against this judgment that the State has come up in appeal.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent had driven the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and struck the scooter against the bus which was on its extreme left and resultantly the pillion rider of the scooter received/suffered injuries on his person and lateron had succumbed to the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge should not have shown any leniency by modifying the sentence.

7. On the other