STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. IBRAHIMSAB MAIBUBSAB PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has sought enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial court against the accused-respondent for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC. Charge-sheet was filed on 20-5-1989. On the same day an application for advancement was filed by the accused with a request to take the case on file and the trial court acceded to his request, furnished copies of documents on which the prosecution proposed to rely to the accused, called the case at 3.00 p.m., recorded his plea of guilt which the accused made, convicted for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence. In challenging the adequacy of sentence, it is contended for the State that the trial court ought to have imposed minimum substantive imprisonment as the law is now well-settled in cases of this nature. In order to consider the State appeal we also considered the merits of conviction as the appellate court is duty bound.

(2.) WE are not happy with the speed with which the proceedings ended in the trial court. It is as though everything was ready to convict the accused for this flea-bite sentence for an offence under Section 304-A, IPC. The proceedings recorded make it amply clear. Charge-sheet was filed on the same day and perhaps the accused was also present when it was filed and in order to avoid issuance of summons to the accused and getting his presence, the trial court found it convenient to entertain the application filed by him to take the case on board on that day itself. There was no necessity to take the case on board because no further date was given as yet, though the court directed that summons be issued by 29-5-1989. If the accused was present, there was no need to give this date. That apart, though the application of the accused of the same date suggests that some urgent order was required to be obtained and therefore the case be taken to file, the learned Magistrate observes in the order sheet that voluntarily appearing before court the accused had applied to take the case on board stating that he intended to admit guilt. His application however does not state that he intended to admit guilt. Copies were also furnished on the same date. In the course of his order, the learned Magistrate observes that, he pleaded guilty and the same was accepted. He makes the following observation with regard to the plea of the accused: