State vs P. Manohara

M.P. Chinnappa, J.—Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/appellant and the learned Counsel Sri S. Vishwajit Shetty for the respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that prosecution was launched against the respondent in C.C. No. 9194 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Mangalore, alleging that he being the driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-19/585 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on the National Highway No. 17, near Panambur Circle, Mangalore, and dashed against one Yadhav Bokkapatna who was crossing the road and caused his death. Therefore, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the respondents, he admitted his guilt. On the basis of this admission of guilt by the respondent on 17-2-1997, the Court passed an order on 10-3-1997 sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 304A of the IPC. The State being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court imposing only a sentence of fine, this appeal is preferred'' u/s 377 for enhancement of sentence.

The learned State Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the Supreme Court in the decision of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju 1987(2) Kar. L.J. 320 : ILR 1987 Kar. 1894 has held:

"It is not as if the respondent had been charged or convicted for a grave offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and his fate had remained in suspense for a long time and as a consequence thereof, he had undergone mental agony and torment for a long period of time. Here was a case where the respondent had not only driven his bus in a reckless manner and caused the death of one person and injuries to another but he had also attempted to escape prosecution by failing to report the accident to the police authorities. Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- on the driver of a motor vehicle for an offence u/s 304A of the IPC and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice.

Sentence for conviction u/s 304A of the IPC enhanced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months".

In view of this decision, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the sentence imposed on the respondent is inadequate and requires to be enhanced.

The learned Counsel for the respondent repelling this argument submitted that it is a case where the respondent had admitted the guilt while plea bargain and the Court also was pleased to hold that imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/- was adequate. Under the circumstances it is not a fit case for enhancing the sentence. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that it is a case of plea bargain and there is no evidence whatsoever to find out under what circumstances this incident occurred and the respondent in good faith and also to avoid unnecessary delay on the assurance given by his Advocate had admitted the guilt though he was not guilty of the offence. Despite this reasoning, if this Court were to hold that it is a case for enhancement, he painstakingly submitted that this Court cannot straightaway enhance the sentence as held by the Supreme Court in Thippaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein their Lordships have held:

"Where by reason of plea bargaining the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced by Magistrate acting upon his plea of guilty, the enhancement of sentence by the appellate or revisional Court in appeal or revision by acting on plea of guilty would not be reasonable, fair and just. It would be clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be Jet-off lightly and then in appeal or revision, to enhance the sentence. The Court of appeal or revision should, in such a case, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and remand the case to the Trial Court so that the accused can, if he so wishes, defend himself against the charge and if he is found guilty, proper sentence can be passed against him".

In view of this judgment, the argument of the learned State Public Prosecutor for enhancement of sentence in this case without evidence cannot be accepted as it is a case wherein the respondent has pleaded guilty and no evidence is let in. Therefore, following the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to restore the case on file and proceed with the case for trial and after the trial, if the Court comes to the conclusion that respondent is guilty of the charges framed against him, pass adequate sentence in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision of Krishna alias Raja referred to supra.