Sentencing for rash and negligent driving causing death (S. 304A IPC) must prioritize deterrence, especially for professional drivers, although specific mitigating factors like the time of occurrence and family dependency may justify a moderate reduction in the term of imprisonment.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDG, MANDYA, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL. NO. 72/2020 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 24.09.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT MADDUR IN C.C.NO.375/2011 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279,304(A) OF IPC, AND 187 OF MV ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Smt.Raksha Keerthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Kemparaju, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. After addressing the arguments for considerable amount of time yesterday and today, learned counsel for the revision petitioner files a memo. Memo reads as under:

“The counsel for petitioner submits that the alleged incident is said to have occurred at early morning at 5 a.m. and there is no intention on the part of the accused, and the Hon’ble Trial Court has sentenced for one year imprisonment which is sever. He is the only bread winner and has to look after family. Therefore, requesting the Hon’ble Court to consider the mitigating circumstance into consideration and show mercy on the petitioner by reducing sentence to 6 months in the interest of justice.”

3. Placing the memo on record, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short), this would take this Court to the question of sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

4. Learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the attendant fact and circumstances of the case, imposed one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that petitioner is a family person and incident has occurred beyond the human control and therefore, maximum lenience can be shown by enhancing the fine amount reasonably which can be paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased and jail sentence may be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent would contend that in a matter of this nature, showing leniency by enhancing the fine amount would not arise inasmuch as a valuable human life has been lost totally on account of the negligent driving of the lorry by the revision petitioner and therefore, sentence needs no further modification.

7. What is the appropriate sentence in a matter of this nature and whether benevolent provisions of the Prevention of Offenders Act can be extended to the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, is no longer res integra.

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 is held as under:

“13. In our considered view the decision in the said case has to be confined to the facts of that case. It cannot be said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim, regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304-A IPC, there can be reduction of sentence.

14. In