Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 876 (BOM)

State of Goa v. Devendra Kashinath Chopdekar

2009-07-18

N.A.BRITTO

body2009
Judgment : ORAL JUDGMENT: This is a State's Appeal and is directed against Judgment/Order dated 31-8-2007 by which the Respondent (Accused, for short) has been acquitted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 2. There is no dispute that the accident took place on 27-1-2006 at about 20.15 hours on the National Highway-17 near Mahadev Temple at Tembawada, Ugavem, about 3 kms. before reaching Patradevi border police out-post, as the accused was proceeding towards Patradevi, driving his bus known as 'Almeida Bus' bearing No. GA-01-Z-6794. In the said accident, death was caused of Tulshidas Mahale, aged 45 years. The accused did not wait at the scene but went to the said out-post and surrendered to the police. 3. The accused was charged and tried with the allegation that the death of the said Tulshidas Mahale was caused due to his rash and negligent driving. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses in support of the charge. 4. The case of the accused was that one KTC bus was standing on the road but he did not know where the said Tulshidas Mahale got down from the said KTC bus but when he reached at the spot, one person suddenly crossed the road, gave a dash to his bus as a result he fell on the side of the road and he took his bus to the side of the road and as the public who gathered there came to assault him, due to fear, he left the spot of accident. 5. The learned J.M.F.C.(Magistrate, for short) observed that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road but disbelieved the evidence of P2/Chandrakant Mahale because of a contradiction which, in the opinion, of the learned Magistrate was major. The learned Magistrate also disbelieved the evidence of PW3/Manguesh Mahale as according to him he did not corroborate the version of PW2/Chandrakant Mahale. The learned Magistrate also observed that the Investigation Officer did not examine the driver of the KTC bus and had only recorded the statements of the said PW2/Chandrakant Mahale and PW3/Manguesh Mahale who were related to the deceased and had not recorded the statements of other witnesses, and, therefore proceeded to acquit the accused. In doing so the learned Magistrate accepted the explanation given by the accused namely that as the KTC bus had stopped and one person suddenly crossed the road and dashed his bus. In doing so the learned Magistrate accepted the explanation given by the accused namely that as the KTC bus had stopped and one person suddenly crossed the road and dashed his bus. However, the learned Magistrate did not make an effort to find out, if that was the case, how the deceased had fallen on the extreme right side of the road. 6. The panchanama and the sketch drawn were proved through the evidence of PW1/Costao Rodrigues and PW7/Apa Parab, Head Constable. The said documents and their evidence shows that the National Highway at that place has two lanes demarcated by a line and the tar road at that place is about 8 meters wide. The accident had taken place on the extreme right of the road proceeding from Pernem to Patradevi and after the accident the bus of the accused had stopped at a distance of 40 meters from the point of impact in an oblique position, its front portion being towards the edge of the tar road to the left. The spot of accident has been shown on the extreme right hand side of the road partly on the kutcha road and partly on the tar road. There is also another spot with blood stains which is again shown on the tar portion of the road. PW1/Costao Rodrigues had clearly stated that he had noticed blood stain marks on the tar road as well as on the kutcha road on the left hand side, if one proceeds from Pernem to Patradevi and further confirmed that the distance between the blood stains and the bus was about 40 meters. He denied the suggestion that there were blood stains in the middle of the road. According to him, it is the Police who had shown the spot of accident to him at the time of conducting the panchanama. He again denied the suggestion that the accident was in the middle of the road. PW7/Apa Parab, Head Constable confirmed that he had conducted the scene of offence panchanama and further stated that the spot of the accident was on the right hand side of the kutcha road if one proceeds towards the direction of Patradevi. He further stated that he had made inquiry in respect of the present accident from the public who had shown the spot of accident to him, as the injured was already shifted to the hospital. He further stated that he had made inquiry in respect of the present accident from the public who had shown the spot of accident to him, as the injured was already shifted to the hospital. It is in his evidence that after receiving the phone call at about 20.15 hours from an unknown person that an accident had taken place near Mahadev Temple, he had phoned to get an ambulance and it is this ambulance which had taken the deceased to the hospital and according to him at the time he had reached the scene the deceased had already been taken to the hospital. He also stated that there were blood stains on the tar road which were about 2 meters from the distance of the kutcha road. PW5/Bhalchandra Mahale who lodged the complaint on the next day, stated that his cousin Chandrakant Mahale(PW2) came hurriedly to his house and told him about the accident and he immediately rushed to the spot and saw the deceased Tulshidas Mahale lying on the right side of the road whilst proceeding towards Patradevi. According to him, the said Tulshidas Mahale had crossed the road and the body was lying about 1½ meter inside the road and he was unconscious and blood was fallen on the road. He stated that there was no delay in lodging the complaint as the accident took place on 27-1-2006 and he lodged the complaint on the next day i.e. 28-1-2006. He was not cross-examined. On the basis of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it can safely be concluded that the body of the deceased was found, after the impact, towards the edge of the right hand side of the tar road, if not on the kutcha portion on the right of the said road, since the prosecution did not examine any person who had seen the accused fallen on the said kutcha portion. 7. The death of the deceased was proved through the evidence of PW4/Dr. Sidharth Banaulikar and PW8/P.I. Projoth Fadte, the latter having conducted the inquest panchanama and the former the post mortem examination of the deceased who was about 45 years of age. According to PW4/Dr. Banaulikar the deceased had died due to cranio cerebral damage associated with chest injury consequent to blunt force impact in a motor vehicular accident. 8. Sidharth Banaulikar and PW8/P.I. Projoth Fadte, the latter having conducted the inquest panchanama and the former the post mortem examination of the deceased who was about 45 years of age. According to PW4/Dr. Banaulikar the deceased had died due to cranio cerebral damage associated with chest injury consequent to blunt force impact in a motor vehicular accident. 8. Prosecution had also examined PW6/M.V. Inspector Shri Pilankar who had inspected the bus driven by the accused on 30-1-2006 of which left wind screen glass and left hand side light were damaged. So also there were damages on the left and right hand sides of the bumber. He opined that there was no mechanical defect in the bus. He opined that he could not say whether the said damages were old or new. In case the bus had dashed on the left of the bus driven by the accused, the deceased would not have fallen on the right hand side of the road and would have ordinarily been run over by the bus and that is not the case at hand. The circumstances of the case justify drawing an inference that the deceased came in contact with the right hand side of the bus of the accused and for that reason the deceased was found fallen on the right hand side of the bus as one proceeds from Pernem to Patradevi, on the tar portion of the road, and because of that PW5/Bhalchandra Mahale inferred, and in my view rightly, that the said Tulshidas had almost crossed the road when the bus of the accused dashed against him. 9. Coming to the evidence of PW2/Chandrakant Mahale and PW3/Manguesh Mahale, the first was the neighbour of the deceased and possibly was distantly related, while PW3/Manguesh Mahale was neither a neighbour or relation. According to PW2/Chandrakant Mahale, he was sitting on a bench near a bus stop at Mahadev Temple near Ugvem and at that time as usual they were gossiping(sic. Chit chatting). He stated that Tulshidas Mahale got down from the KTC bus and crossed the road and was proceeding towards the direction of his house and had reached the kutcha road when the said 'Almeida Bus' gave a dash to him in wrong direction whereupon Tulshidas Mahale fell on the road and sustained bleeding injuries on his stomach and the bus proceeded to a distance of 40 meters and stopped. He stated that the deceased remained at the spot for about two minutes and the accused ran away from the spot leaving the bus there and thereafter three brothers of Tulshidas Mahale came to the spot and took Tulshidas Mahale to Goa Medical College. He stated that besides him one Manguesh (PW3) was also present. In cross-examination he admitted that Tulshidas Mahale was his neighbour and they observed the mourning of Tulshidas's family. He stated that the spot of the accident is a straight road and further stated that there was a bus stop situated on the right hand of the road if one proceeds from Mapusa towards Mumbai. In further cross-examination he stated that the bench where he was sitting was at a distance of 15-20 meters and there was electricity pole near the spot of the accident, and along with him there were about 10 persons sitting there. According to him, the deceased had got down from the rear door of the bus but he did not know whether the accused was overtaking the said KTC bus. He was confronted with his earlier statement wherein he had not stated that one Mumbai bus had come in a fast speed and in the process of overtaking the KTC bus the Mumbai bus had totally come in the right side direction and thereafter dashed against Tulshidas Mahale. He had stated that the bus of the accused was in a fast speed but denied the suggestion that the deceased had suddenly crossed the road from the front side of the KTC bus and for that reason the accident had taken place. He also denied the suggestion that as they were talking he had not seen how the accident had taken place and further denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the said Tulshidas Mahale. 10. He also denied the suggestion that as they were talking he had not seen how the accident had taken place and further denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the said Tulshidas Mahale. 10. PW3/Manguesh Mahale also stated that he was sitting on a bench at Ugvem and one KTC bus had come and the deceased had got down from the said KTC bus and thereafter the KTC bus proceeded further and the said deceased crossed the road and reached to the kutcha road when the 'Almeida Bus' came from Mapusa direction proceeding towards Mumbai and tried to overtake the KTC bus and as a result the bus of the accused came in wrong direction and gave a dash to the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and thereafter the bus of the accused proceeded to a distance of about 20 to 25 meters and stopped in cross direction(sic. oblique) but the driver of the bus did not remain on the spot and left the place leaving the bus at the spot. He also stated that after the accident most of the drivers run away from the spot. He also stated that at the time of accident PW2/Chandrakant Mahale and some old aged people were present and due to the accident Tulshidas Mahale had sustained bleeding injuries. He stated that thereafter, the brothers of the injured came to the spot and took him to Goa Medical College, Bambolim. According to him, there was a street light at the scene of accident and the said 'Almeida Bus' was at a speed of 80 kms. Per hour by approximation. In cross-examination he stated that the deceased was not his neighbour but he knew him slightly. He further stated that he did not observe any mourning period of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that Tulshidas Mahale suddenly crossed the road from the front side of the KTC bus and due to that the present accident took place. He also stated that before they could proceed near the bus driver i.e. the accused ran away from the spot. He stated that he did not know the names of other persons who were present at the spot of accident, except the said PW2/Chandrakant Mahale. He also stated that before they could proceed near the bus driver i.e. the accused ran away from the spot. He stated that he did not know the names of other persons who were present at the spot of accident, except the said PW2/Chandrakant Mahale. He also denied the suggestion that the present accident took place due to the fault of the deceased. 11. The learned Magistrate, discarded the evidence of the said two witnesses observing that they were related to the deceased, when one of them was not related at all, and further observing that they had not corroborated the case of prosecution, when in fact they did and their evidence not only corroborated each other's evidence but also circumstantial evidence brought out by the scene of offence panchanama. From the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses and other evidence on record it was very clear that the accident had taken place on the National Highway, the road there being of 8 meters wide, with kutcha road on either side, and demarcated by white line and the accident had taken place on the right hand side lane of the road in the process of the accused overtaking the KTC bus which had stopped to alight passengers. The facts proved show that the accident had taken place in the night and the bus of the accused was fast, and as stated by PW3/Manguesh Mahale at a speed of 80 kms. per hour. The fact that the bus of the accused stopped at 40 meters distance after the impact, corroborates, the version of the said PW3/Manguesh Mahale, as regards speed. PW7/Head Constable Parab might have stated that the divider line(dividing two lanes) of the highway was with gaps which was an indication that the bus of the accused could overtake but that certainly did not mean that the accused could overtake in a fast speed and in utter disregard to the passengers who might attempt crossing the road after alighting from the KTC bus. The evidence of PW2/Chandrakant Mahale as well as of PW3/Manguesh Mahale clearly shows that the deceased had alighted from the KTC bus and had almost crossed the road in order to proceed to his house and had reached almost the end of it. The evidence of PW2/Chandrakant Mahale as well as of PW3/Manguesh Mahale clearly shows that the deceased had alighted from the KTC bus and had almost crossed the road in order to proceed to his house and had reached almost the end of it. Since the road in front of the accused was obstructed by the said KTC bus the only options which were available to the accused was either to stop behind the said KTC bus or overtake it at a slow speed more so because it was night. Since the KTC bus had stopped on the left, the accused ought to have known as a prudent driver that passengers who alight from the bus normally have a tendency to cross the road. To continue driving at a fast speed on the wrong side of the road and overtaking the KTC bus was nothing but rashness or recklessness. As observed by the Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana ( AIR 2000 SC 1677 ) a professional driver must inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in motion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that rash driving need not necessarily cause an accident and if an accident occurs it need not result in death. A vehicle driver, is expected to keep the vehicle always in a state of control sufficient to enable him to avoid running into any passenger who may step in or fail to step off the road, however annoying his conduct may be to the driver. The section speaks of causing death by an act which is rash and negligent. Whether the accused in a particular case acted rashly or negligently depends upon facts of each case. The condition of the road, the amount of traffic at that time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road, are factors to be considered in assessing the rashness or negligence of the driver. In rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to consequences. In other words, culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow although the individual hopes, even though some times sincerely, that such consequences may not follow. In rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to consequences. In other words, culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow although the individual hopes, even though some times sincerely, that such consequences may not follow. The criminality lies in not taking precautions to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. Criminal negligence, in the words of the Apex Court (in 1968 1 SCR 121) means gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care which was the imperative duty of the accused to have exercised. Criminal negligence is want of such degree of care as is required in particular circumstances of the case. In other words criminal negligence is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and to take precaution to guard against injury either to the public in general or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances attending the charge it was imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. In the case at hand, the accused overtook the KTC bus in fast speed having total disregard to the passengers who might have been crossing the road after alighting from the KTC bus and in that the accused was rash. If the vehicle would not have been beyond the required speed, it would not have knocked down the deceased. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused submits that the deceased crossed the road without noticing the bus. If that was the case the deceased would have fallen in the middle of the road. The fact that the body of the deceased was found thrown on the extreme right hand side of the road, shows that the deceased had already crossed the major portion of the road after alighting from the KTC bus. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Shri Madhukar Gaurishankar Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2007 ALL MR(Cri.) 1947) and has submitted that in case a person suddenly crosses the road on the highway the driver of the vehicle cannot be made liable for the act. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Shri Madhukar Gaurishankar Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2007 ALL MR(Cri.) 1947) and has submitted that in case a person suddenly crosses the road on the highway the driver of the vehicle cannot be made liable for the act. That was a case where a lady passenger was crushed under the rear wheel and in that context that this Court observed that the facts indicated the possibility that the driver did not get time to save her and as such he was entitled for acquittal. In my view, the said Judgment cannot be made applicable to the fact situation in this case. 12. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the complaint of PW5/Bhalchandra Mahale was filed with delay and that the station diary made by PW7/Apa Parab, Head Constable ought to be treated as a F.I.R. This submission only raises an academic issue and does not help the accused in any manner. Ordinarily, in the cases of accidents, a Police Officer registers a case of accident on receiving information and then proceeds to the scene of accident to draw a panchanama of the scene of offence. What is generally reported is not that anyone has committed an offence but that an accident has taken place. A cognizable offence is disclosed only after the scene of offence is examined and statements of witnesses are recorded. It is generally at this stage that normally the Police Officer lodges a formal complaint. In this case, the complaint was filed on the next day and considering the facts of the case it could not be said that it was filed with delay. Obviously, the deceased had first to be taken care of in the hospital before the complainant could go to the Police Station and lodge his complaint. The submission that the complaint was filed after deliberation needs to be rejected. 13. Considering the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, particularly the evidence of the scene of offence which was amply corroborated by at least one, if not two eye witnesses, the prosecution had sufficiently proved beyond doubt that the accident had taken place on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, the driver of 'Almeida Bus'. Considering the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, particularly the evidence of the scene of offence which was amply corroborated by at least one, if not two eye witnesses, the prosecution had sufficiently proved beyond doubt that the accident had taken place on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, the driver of 'Almeida Bus'. Since the accused had surrendered at Patradevi Out-Post soon after the accident, the accused could not be convicted under Section 134 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For reasons aforesaid, the accused deserves to be convicted under Section 304-A IPC. Consequently, the appeal deserves to succeed, the Judgment of the learned trial Court is hereby set aside and the accused convicted under Section 304-A IPC. 14. At the request of learned Counsel on behalf of the accused stand over to Tuesday, 21-7-2009 at 2.30 p.m. for hearing the accused on the point of sentence. 15. Shri Satardekar, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has placed on record the medical reports of the accused to show that the accused is suffering from a form of cancer which is known as squamous cell carcinoma, and, as such the accused ought not to be sentenced to any imprisonment. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the wife of the accused has a bacterial infection to one of the eyes which requires to be operated. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the accused has three children who study in XI, VIII and VII Stds. Learned Counsel has also submitted that considering the illness the accused and his wife suffer from, only sentence of fine be imposed on the accused and to support his statement that only fine ought to be imposed, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on case of State V/s. Vishwanath Naik (2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2671, Sk. Mustafa s/o. Sk. Ibrahim V/s. State of Maharashtra (2003 ALL, MR (Cri) 1975 and State of Karnataka V/s. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (Appeal (crl.) 407 of 2002. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in the case at hand, the deceased was also responsible for the accident and therefore lenient view ought to be taken. He further submits that the accused is suffering from the said cancer for the last four months and requires constant medical treatment to be given. 16. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in the case at hand, the deceased was also responsible for the accident and therefore lenient view ought to be taken. He further submits that the accused is suffering from the said cancer for the last four months and requires constant medical treatment to be given. 16. On the other hand, Shri Ferreira, the Learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the case at hand is a case where the deceased was a pedestrian who was involved in the accident for no fault of his. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that constant medical treatment can be provided to the accused whilst undergoing sentence of imprisonment. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the cases of death arising out of accidents are on the rise and any sentence to be imposed should serve punitive purpose as well as should be a deterrent to others. 17. There is no dispute that the case of State V/s. Vishwanath Naik (supra) was a case where the scooterist had skidded due to rains and the truck had dashed the scooterist in that process and considering the said circumstances this Court did not interfere with the sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Court, that is to say fine of Rs.2,000/-under section 304-A in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 18. In the case of SK. Mustafa s/o. SK. Ibrahim V/s. State of Maharashtra (supra), the collusion was between a truck and a car and six persons had died in the accident. The accident had taken place on a highway and at a dangerous turn known to be accidents prone and this Court held that under section 304A the term of imprisonment is not a must. The section visualizes the possibility of offence falling under it being penalised by mere fine. The mere fact that a human life is lost by negligent driving of a vehicle does not justify the Court in passing a deterrent sentence. Severity of sentence at times depends on to a great extent on the degree of callousness on the part of the accused. It is no part of the duty of the Courts to punish with savage sentence every motorist who has a misfortune to have an accident, which results in loss of human life, even though the accident be due to an error of judgment on the part of the driver. 19. It is no part of the duty of the Courts to punish with savage sentence every motorist who has a misfortune to have an accident, which results in loss of human life, even though the accident be due to an error of judgment on the part of the driver. 19. In the case of State of Karnataka V/s. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar, (supra), there was a head on collision between a car and a mini lorry driven by the accused as a result of which the right front wheel of the car had burst and the driver of the car lost control of the vehicle and it dashed against a nearby tree, resulting in death of three persons and injury to one and the sentence imposed, inter alia, under section 304A I.P.C. was of six months imprisonment. The Ld. Single Judge of the High Court had interfered with the said sentence and the Apex Court observed that having regard to the serious nature of the accident which had resulted in the death of four persons, the Ld. Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the sentence imposed by the court below as it may create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the court should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. 20. While imposing a sentence, no two cases can be similar. Sentence, it is said, is the most public face of the criminal justice system. Courts are required to follow the golden rule that sentence to be imposed must be commensurate with the crime committed, though we have no golden scales to measure the quantum of punishment to be imposed. It remains in the realm of discretion which has to be exercised judicially. The fact that the accused reported the accident at the Police Out Post, soon after the accident, in my view, cannot be considered to be mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused for in any event he was required in law to report the accident. It remains in the realm of discretion which has to be exercised judicially. The fact that the accused reported the accident at the Police Out Post, soon after the accident, in my view, cannot be considered to be mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused for in any event he was required in law to report the accident. In the case at hand, the accused has been found overtaking a bus which had stopped to alight passengers and that too at a fast speed and in such a situation that the deceased had contributed to the accident cannot be accepted. The accused was driving a Bombay bound bus but for that he could not be above the rule of the road. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Public Prosecutor retribution and deterrence still remains two of the several aspects which are required to be taken note of at the time of imposition of sentence which always should be commensurate with the crime committed by the accused. 21. The Apex Court has observed time and again that undue sympathy to accused in imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of legal system. Proportionality of sentence with the gravity of offence is an essential requirement. 22. The Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on an unreported Judgment of this Court in the case of Baburao Kudalkar V/s. State of Goa (Criminal Revision application No.11 of 2009 decided on 6th/7th May, 2009, wherein reference was made to the case of Dalbir Singh V/s. State of Haryana ( AIR 2000 SC 1677 ), wherein the Apex Court had observed that while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The Apex Court had further observed that a professional driver should not take a chance thinking that rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident and if an accident is caused it need not necessarily result in death of any human being and or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence and if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. In the case of Prabhakaran V/s. State of Kerala, the Apex Court has noted that punishment provided under section 304-A is grossly inadequate in view of the increasing number of vehicular accidents resulting in death of large number of innocent persons but further observed that it was for the legislature to provide for an appropriate sentence. In the case of Rattan Singh V/s. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 84 ), the Apex Court refused to interfere with the sentence of two years awarded to a truck driver on the ground that he had to maintain a large family and that the owner of the truck had left the family of the accused in the cold and further observed that when a life was lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion could be shown. The Court had further observed that in our current conditions the law under section 304-A must have due regard to the fatal frequency of rash driving of heavy duty vehicles and of speeding menaces. The highways in this State may be technically highways but at places even two vehicles cannot move comfortably. The figures published on all local newspapers by the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) on 7.7.09 show that in the year 2008 318 persons were killed on roads in 294 fatal accident, 42% of deaths having taken place on the national highways and the increase of accidents was 1.53% compared to the previous year. The Apex Court in Dalbir Singh V/s. State of Haryana ( AIR 2000 SC 1677 ) has again reiterated that while considering the quantum of sentence, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence so that high rate of motor accidents is lessened due to callous driving. It appears that above said observations were not placed before this Court while deciding the case of Sk. Mustafa Ibrahim V/s. State of Maharashtra (supra) in as much as there can be no rashness or negligence if the case is one of error of judgment. 23. It appears that above said observations were not placed before this Court while deciding the case of Sk. Mustafa Ibrahim V/s. State of Maharashtra (supra) in as much as there can be no rashness or negligence if the case is one of error of judgment. 23. This court had reproduced the observation made in Criminal Revision Application no.5/09 in the case of Devesh T. Chodankar by Judgment dated 27.4.09 and they are as follows:- 13.The case at hand is almost similar to the case of Rattan Singh (supra) where in the words of the Apex Court, the lethal hand of a truck driver had taken the life of a scooterist – a deadly spectacle so common in our towns and cities. That was almost 3 decades back since then much water has flown downs the Zuari. Down the line, things have not improved but on the contrary, the situation has worsened, with more and more deaths taking place on our roads with vehicles becoming larger and more powerful and the road conditions almost remaining the same. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the maximum sentence imposed and that too of two years R.I. Deterrence remains one of the important objects of punishment, as George Saville would put it “men are not hanged for stealing horses but so that horses may not be stolen”. Deterrence, as main object of punishment was considered in Rattan's case and also in Dalbir Singh's case. Society in general and Courts in particular have now found that the punishment prescribed under section 304-A is adequate but so far Legislature has not stepped in. At times efforts are made to bring the case under section 304 (ii) Indian Penal Code. Courts are therefore required to step in within the frame work of law and impose maximum punishment, when required. Liberal attitude of imposing meagre sentences or misplaced sympathies either on account of lapse of time of personal inconvenience to the accused or his family have been always been counter productive and against the interests of the society. Courts are required to operate sentence system in a way its reflects the conscience of society. The contention that the accused has a wife and two children to look after, must be immediately brushed aside. The deceased too must be having a family. Courts are required to operate sentence system in a way its reflects the conscience of society. The contention that the accused has a wife and two children to look after, must be immediately brushed aside. The deceased too must be having a family. As observed by the Apex Court “it scarcely lies in the mouth of the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers”. The contention that the accused had a large family to maintain was immediately shot shown. It was further observed that when life was lost and circumstances of driving were harsh no compassion could be shown. Prabhakaran (supra) has taken note that 82,000 people were killed on roads in the year 2002 and the estimate of people injured is taken 15 to 20 times more than that figure”. As law stands today and in order to curb the ever increasing deaths being caused on the roads due to rash and negligent driving of vehicles any sentence to be imposed must be deterrent so that there is some decrease in fatal accidents. Punishment is a debt which an offender has to pay to the society. Simone Weil, a French Philosopher had this to say:- “Punishment must be an honour. It must not only wipe out the stigma of the crime, but must be regarded as a supplementary form of education compelling a higher devotion to the public good. The severity of punishment must also be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated, and not with the interests of public security”. (Quoted from Quotable Lawyer). The accused may be suffering from squamous carcinoma but that can always be treated from jail. The wife of the accused has just an infection which can be treated at any time. That the accused has school going children is a plea which is required to be shot down as was done in the case of Rattan Singh (supra). That plea if accepted will enable everyone to escape imprisonment. 24. Nevertheless, considering that the accused is suffering from a form of cancer as stated hereinabove, in my opinion, ends of justice will be met by imposing the following sentence under section 304-A against the accused. The accused is hereby sentenced under section 304-A to undergo S.I. of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further S.I. of three months. The accused is hereby sentenced under section 304-A to undergo S.I. of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further S.I. of three months. The accused to surrender before the Ld. J.M.F.C., to undergo the said sentence within a period of three weeks. The accused to surrender before the Learned Magistrate on 18.8.2009.