Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2255 (RAJ)

Sobaj Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2012-12-04

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 2.8.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer whereby the appeal arising out of the order dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer has been dismissed, whereby the present petitioner has been conviction for the offences under Sections 304A and 2791.P.C. and has been sentenced as under: (i) Section 304A I.P.C. Six months' RI and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default whereof to undergo one months' RI. (ii) Section 279, I.P.C. Three months' RI and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default whereof to undergo one months' RI. The short facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged at the concerned Police Station stating therein that the present petitioner, on 11.8.1989, while driving tractor trolly rashly and negligently, collided with the deceased. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner and after hearing of the case, the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as above and the appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.The contention of the present petitioner is that both the Courts below have illegally convicted the present petitioner. There is no evidence that the present petitioner drove the tractor in high speed. The witnesses are not trustworthy. The manner of the accident has not been proved and in alternative, he has also prayed for the benefit of probation.Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and the revisions petition deserves to be dismissed.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.Initially, a report was filed by Purushottam stating therein that he and his brother were going on cycles in Barmer City at Ahinsa Circle, a tractor came driven rashly and negligently and hit Parmanand. Parmanand was ran over by the tractor. He was shifted to hospital and died. It has also been stated that a police constable also came at the spot to intervene. PW-3 Purushottam, who is the. eye-witness of the accident as well as brother of the deceased, has stated that the present petitioner was driving the vehicle and otherwise also identity of the accused has not been disputed before the Court below by the petitioner himself. PW-3 Purushottam, who is the. eye-witness of the accident as well as brother of the deceased, has stated that the present petitioner was driving the vehicle and otherwise also identity of the accused has not been disputed before the Court below by the petitioner himself. Purushottam has specifically narrated about the manner of the accident as well as PW-2 Bakhtawar Singh, who was the traffic constable, has also narrated the prosecution story. Apart from this, the site inspection memo reveals that the accident has taken place in the middle of the city at Ahinsa Circle and the tractor stopped after 30 steps and the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the said memo itself is enough to prove the rashness of he present petitioner. PW-4 is another eye-witness, it is true that he has been declared hostile but instead of this fact, he has stated specifically that the tractor hit the cycle rider. The learned Court below has rightly considered the evidence submitted before it and there is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. 2. The other contention of the present petitioner is that the matter pertains to 1989. At that time, he was a young person of 30 years. He is facing trial since long. Hence, a liberal view should be taken on the point of sentence. 3. Looking to the facts of the case and taking note of the law, which has been time and again propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court the present petitioner deserves no sympathy. 4. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 , it has been held as under: "While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime consideration should be deterrence. A professional driver should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would he dealt with leniently by the Court. The following principles laid down in that decision are very relevant: (1) 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. The following principles laid down in that decision are very relevant: (1) 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. (2) Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence-of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly 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 locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles." 5. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles." 5. The same principles have been reiterated in the case of B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 5 SCC 730 , wherein it has been held as under: "It is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction. If anyone 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. Considering the increased number of road accidents, this Court, on several occasions, has reminded the criminal Courts dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation's of Offenders Act, 1958. We fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir Singh (supra). While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous driving of vehicles, the Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentences and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the graving of the offence if the prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of the above principles, we express our inability to accept the reasoning of the High Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already under gone, that is, 15 days. Merely because the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- each, is also not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck." 6. Merely because the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- each, is also not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck." 6. Again recently, in 2012, the Hon'ble Apex Court has again fortified the view earlier taken by the Court in the judgment delivered in the case of State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, AIR 2012 (Cri.) (SC) 353 . 7. Looking at the above legal position and the facts of the present case, it is not a fit case to deal with the petitioner leniently. The petitioner is not entitled to any sympathy and hence the revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court to suffer rest of the sentence.Revision petition dismissed. *******