S R SATHIYAPRADEEP Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is at the instance of the de facto complainant in Crime No. 367 of 1999 on the file 'of Inspector of Police, Kaliyakkavilai Police Station. The crime was registered for offences under Secs. 304-A IPC and 134 (A) (H) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the allegation that at 8.30 p.m. on 28-5-1999, the petitioner being the driver of a Tempo van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said rash and negligent driving, it dashed against Lakshmi daughter of the petitioner and caused her death. Investigation was taken up and final report was filed. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and when questioned, he pleaded guilty. The benevolent Magistrate, accepting the plea convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. He was also convicted under Secs. 134 (A) (B) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for the said conviction, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The second respondent/accused paid the fine. But, the de facto complainant aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence imposed upon the second respondent has chosen to prefer the present revision.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in imposing only fine when the second respondent has caused the death of an eight- year-old girl by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. According to him, the sentence is too inadequate and it must be enhanced. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the learned Magistrate has every power to impose fine only that the petitioner pleaded guilty on the hope that he will be let off leniently.

(3.) It is of course, true that the learned Magistrate has power to impose fine only but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts in this case do not show that the second respondent is entitled for leniency in the matter of sentence, though he admitted that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and cause the death of eight-year-old girl. The contention that the second respondent pleaded guilty on the hope that he will be let off leniently and hence, the sentence should not be enhanced, is to be stated only to be rejected. I am unable to understand as to from which source, the second respondent had the knowledge that by pleading guilty, he will be let off leniently. The second respondent has no grievance that the plea was not voluntary. He has also not preferred any appeal against his conviction, challenging the judgment, it is to be presumed that he pleaded guilty to the charge voluntarily and there is no material before this Court to indicate that the said plea was made on the hope that he will be let off leniently. If it had been made on that hope, this Court cannot be a silent spectator and put a stamp of approval oh the said sentence. If that be the case, every accused prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, will plead guilty and walk out of the Court by paying some fine.