STATE Vs. HEMAPPA CHANDRASIDAOPA ANGADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application made on behalf of the State under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the reasons mentioned therein that the sentence imposed on the accused-respondent under Section 304A is 'too-light' and therefore it should be enhanced. The respondent was convicted on his own plea under the section and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 4 months of simple imprisonment. The charge against the respondent was that on 7th of September, 1966, at 16.45 hours at Verna he drove the tank-car No. MYW 4189 "at an excessive speed, negligently and carelessly, as a result of which on the descent of Verna, the tank ran into a bullock-cart which also was moving down the slope and the bullock-cart driver Santana Gama fell on the ground and the cart passed over him causing his death". The respondent in answer to the charge read out to him. made an application (Ext. 5). In that application he inter alia stated that "as the brakes failed down that the accident took place." In his statement he confirmed what he had stated in the application, and admitted that he was to be blamed for the accident, as a result of which the driver of the above bullock-cart died. He also pleaded for leniency. The learned. Magistrate accepted the plea of guilty and convicted him as mentioned above. The State felt aggrieved by the lenient sentence imposed on the respondent and1 therefore moved this Court in revision.

(2.) Shri Tamba, learned Government Pleader for the State states that on the-plea of guilty made by the respondent the sentence is 'too light'. Shri Joshi learned Counsel for the respondent, invites my attention to the above application (Ex. 5) wherein it was stated by the respondent that as the brakes failed' and therefore the accident took place. What is stated in this application was-later confirmed by him in his statement to the Court. When the respondent stated that the accident was due to the failure of brakes and this he gave as the principal reason for the accident it cannot then be said that he substantially admitted that he had caused the death of Santana Gama by rash or negligent act.

(3.) Section 304A requires the prosecution to prove (1) the death of the person in question; (2) that the accused caused such death; and (3) that such act of the accused was rash or negligent, although it did not amount to culpable homicide. The charge also was not framed properly against the respondent. In this connection attention of the learned Magistrate is invited to the form of the charge under Section 304A at page 835 of the 'Law of Crimes' by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal. If the respondent were actually guilty under Section 304A then in absence of any mitigating circumstances the sentence of Rs. 400/- vas undoubtedly 'too light', as rightly stated by the learned Government Pleader. In the charge framed by the learned Magistrate it is mentioned that the bullock-cart driver fell on the ground and the bullock-cart passed over him causing his death. The fact that the bullock-cart driver died is not in dispute, but what is necessary to prove is whether this death was due to rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent. What is "rash and negligent act" is explained at length in the above commentary on Section 304-A.