Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 120 (RAJ)

Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-13

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned 211.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2000, by which the learned Revisional Court set-aside the Order dated 21.06.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghadi (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) and remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding afresh on the question of quantum of sentence. 2. Before the trial Court, the petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were framed against the petitioner and at that stage, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and sought trial. The prosecution examined certain witnesses and at that stage, the accused-petitioner pleaded guilty, whereupon the trial Court, vide Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2000, convicted the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC and instead of sentencing him to any imprisonment, the petitioner was granted the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act, 1958" hereinafter). Aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the trial Court, the State preferred the aforesaid revision petition before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 211.2003, allowed the revision petition and keeping in view the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC, the benefit of probation should not be granted, remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide it afresh on the question of quantum of sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 211.2003 passed by the revisional Court, the accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. The offence under Section 304-A, IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Consideration 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. The offence under Section 304-A, IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Consideration 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 only or granting the benefit of probation for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. 4. In Francis Xavier Rodrigues vs. State, 1997 (1) TAC 768 (Bom), the accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A, of the Indian Penal Code and the Bombay High Court refused to show an compassion to the accused and held that the basic object of punishment for these offence is not only for inflicting punishment on the culprit for his criminality but it should have deterrent effect on similar persons. The High Court further held that such is not a fit case for invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, particularly when such a plea was not taken before the Courts below and held as under:- "Bearing in mind galloping trend in road accidents in India and devastating consequences visiting victims and their families, benevolent provisions of Section 4 cannot be attracted. One of the prima considerations should be deterrence while considering question of sentence. Professional drivers cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness while his leg is on pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He must always keep in mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving, he cannot escape from jail sentence. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving, Criminal Courts should play such role." In Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1 , while dealing with a case under Section 304-A, IPC. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving, Criminal Courts should play such role." In Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1 , while dealing with a case under Section 304-A, IPC. The Honble Supreme Court observed that sentencing must have a policy of correction and the driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb and punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The Apex Court further observed that the victimisation of the family of the convict may well be a reality and is regrettable. It is weakness of our jurisprudence that the victims of the crimes and the distress of the dependents of the prisoner, do not attract the attention of the law. In State of Karnataka vs. Krishna alias Raju, AIR 1987 SC 861 , the driver was convicted for killing one person and injuring another for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/-. The High Court refused to enhance the sentence. Reversing the Judgment of the High Court and enhancing the sentence for the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC, to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- "The utter disregard shown by the Magistrate to the nature of the offences, particularly the one under Section 304-A, IPC, and the sentence provided for them under the Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, by imposing what may be termed as flea-bite sentences on the respondent, should have spurred the High Court to not only pass appropriate strictures against the Magistrate but also to set right matters by enhancing the sentence at least for the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC to a conscionable level in exercise of its power." In Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (5) SCC 82 , the Honble Supreme Court observed that in view of galloping rate of road accidents in India and its devastating consequences, lenience cannot be shown and the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be treated as applicable to the offence under Section 304-A, IPC. The Apex Court further held that when deciding quantum of sentence deterrence ought to be the prime consider and every driver should fear that if convicted, Courts will not treat him leniently. The Honble Apex Court further held as under:- "When automobiles have become death traps, any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic." In Thakur Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (9) SCC 208 , the Honble Supreme Court, affirming the dictum laid down in Dalbir Singhs case (Supra), held that the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be attracted to such cases. 5. In the instant case, the accused-petitioner was driving the tractor rashly and negligently and he was in a drunken state, which resulted in the accident causing instantaneous death of Ms. Kamtu and resulting in serious injuries to Smt. Lasi, Moti and Shantu. After trial, the accused-petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC and was extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, discussed above, the benefit of probation could not have been granted to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC. After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the law involved therein, I find no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court which may require any interference. 6. Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.