Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 965 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-17

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.7.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Tonk whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 23.3.2003 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for six months' R.I. for each offence together with fine of Rs. 200/- in each offence, in default whereof to further undergo 15-15-15 days' S.I., passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk has been dismissed. 2. The only contention regarding merit of the present petitioner is that he has not been identified by any of the witness and it has not been established by the prosecution evidence that he was the driver of the impugned vehicle at the time of accident. 3. But, this argument of the present petitioner is misconceived as the statement of PW-3 Ms. Prem goes to show that the counsel for the petitioner has admitted the identification of the accused and PW-4 Kajod stated that the present petitioner was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. PW-8 Jagdish, who is the owner of the vehicle has also stated that the present petitioner was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. A notice under Section 133 MV Act was given to the owner PW-8 Jagdish and he has stated that the present petitioner was the driver of the vehicle. 4. Looking at the above, the objection regarding the fact that the present petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time is unacceptable. 5. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the nature of the offence, the accused-petitioner be extended the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Looking to the fact that one person died and three persons were injured 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. 7. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 92 , 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. 7. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 92 , 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 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. 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 deterrent element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and 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 Indian Penal Code 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 vehicle he cannot escape from 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." 8. 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 304-A Indian Penal Code 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 Dalving Singh (supra). 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. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not lake 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 liability 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. In the light of the above principles, we express our liability 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 v. Balwinder Singh, 2012(1) CJ (Cri.)(SC) 152. 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.Revision dismissed. *******