Full Judgment
Hiremath, J
1. The State has sought enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court against the accused - respondent for offence under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. Charge sheet was filed on 20.5.89. 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 304A I.P.C. 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 304A I.P.C. 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 29.5.89. 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 observed 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:
'Accused submitted that the deceased at once came across the road from the back side lorry standing there and his car moving in ordinary speed proceeding to Mantralaya to attend the marriage ceremony dashed against the deceased.
Complaint and statement of witnesses reveal that deceased and others were returning attending marriage in lorry and that lorry was stopped in open area on N.H.13 road to the Western end and at the time of the accident, deceased was about to cross the road. Hence, there is every force in the say of the accused. Accused further submitted he is lonely earning member in his poor family consisting of 5 depending upon his salary as driver of car. Charge sheet shows deceased is a village rustic man. Hence, say of the accused at once unexpectedly came across the road cannot be overlooked. It may be noted that there is no material to show that the accused had caused any accident previously. There is possibility of accused having proceeded without seeing that deceased coming across the road from the standing backside of the lorry. Had he been a little diligent and careful, he could have avoided the accident.'
The reasoning of the learned Magistrate clearly indicates that he had entertained doubt that the accused was really guilty of rash or negligent driving. Reproduction of the statement of the accused made before the Trial Court shows that the circumstances pleaded by the accused were such that the learned Magistrate ought not to have accepted the plea of guilty as it is not obligatory or mandatory to accept the plea of guilt of an accused to a charge. In our view, perhaps the accused thought that he could gain sympathy of the Court and get a flea-bite sentence and perhaps the Magistrate thought that he could have an easy disposal of the case, In an offence of this nature wherein it is now well settled that minimum sentence of six months imprisonment should be imposed, the Trial Court ought not to have proceeded in the manner it has done. This is a fit case wherein we should dismiss the State Appeal but set aside the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and also the sentence passed by it and remit the case to the Trial Court for disposing it of on merits. With these observations we dismiss this State Appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused - respondent by the Trial Court and remit the case to the Trial Court with a direction to register it in its original number, ignore the plea of guilt and proceed to record evidence and dispose of the case on merits.