Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 931 (RAJ)

Majid Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-12

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 24.9.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi Sawai Madhopur convicting and sentencing the petitioner has been dismissed and the petitioner has been sentenced as under:- u/S. 304 A IPC : 2 years' RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI u/S. 338 IPC : 6 months SI u/S. 337 IPC : 3 months SI 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the conviction and wants to submit on the point of sentence only, therefore, there is no need to narrate the facts of the case. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that he has already undergone 11 days sentence. The matter pertains to the year 1984 and no fruitful purpose will be served to against commit the petitioner to jail. He has also submitted that looking to the nature of offence that it is punishable with the sentence which may be extended up to two years, benefit of probation should also be extended to the present petitioner and he has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Kanwara vs. State of Rajasthan (2011(1) RCC 167), wherein the incident was 29 years old and the appellant was of more than 88 years of age but in the present case, looking at the statement of the present petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that at present he is of 55 years of age. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Rameshwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2011 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 5118), wherein benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended for the offence under Section 304A IPC and it has been stated that the court cannot be influenced by the fact that large number of deaths are being caused by the accidents. 5. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that due to rash and negligent act of the present petitioner, four persons died and 50 persons were injured and taking note of these facts, the matter has been left to the discretion of the Court. 6. 5. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that due to rash and negligent act of the present petitioner, four persons died and 50 persons were injured and taking note of these facts, the matter has been left to the discretion of the Court. 6. Looking to the fact that four persons died and 50 persons were injured and taking note the law, which has been time and again propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petitioner deserves no sympathy. 7. In Dalbir Singh vs. 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 considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver should not take a chance thing king that even if he is convicted, he would be 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. 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 IPC 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 drive 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. A professional drive 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 automobilies." 8. The same principles have been reiterated in the case of B. Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 5 SCC 730 = 2008(3) RLW 2281 (SC)), wherein it has been held as under:- "It is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction. If any one 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 IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probations of Offenders Act, 1958. We fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalving 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. 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 sentence 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." 9. 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 vs. Balwinder Singh (2012(1) CJ (Cri) (SC) 152 = 2012(3) RLW 2606 (SC)). 10. 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.