Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1113 (RAJ)

Surendra Singh v. State of Raj.

2013-05-29

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2013
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.1.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara (Raj.) dismissing the appeal filed by present petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.2.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banswara in F.I.R. No. 352/2001 dated 22.11.2001 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC (for short the "I.P.C.") registered at Police Station, Sadar Banswara while the present accused was convicted for the offences under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as under : S.No. Under Section Sentenced Fine imposed In default 1 279 IPC 3 Months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I. 2 337 IPC 3 Months' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I. 3 338 IPC 1 Year's S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I. 4 304 IPC 2 Years' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the judgments/orders passed by both the courts below. 3. Brief allegations are that on 20.11.2001 complainant Rooplal Garasiya (PW-3) while admitting in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Banswara gave Parchabayan stating therein that on 20.11.2001 at 10.00 a.m. he boarded in Bus No. RJ-03-/-0754 from Kala Khunta Village for Chhichh Road. The passengers were also boarded from Kalinjara and Barodaya and at about 11.00 a.m. when the bus reached at Padi Mode, the driver of bus was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner towards Sagrod. A private bus was leading the mini-bus, in pursuance of over taking the private bus, the driver of mini-bus increased the speed of mini-bus, seeing it, the passengers requested the driver to drive the bus slowly, but he did not pay attention. About one kilometer from Sagrod, the Mini-bus turned turtle, resulting which, one person died on spot and others were seriously injured and were taken to hospital. During treatment one more passenger died. 4. Police investigated the matter and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 22.01.2002 against the present petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegations, examined as many as 17 witnesses and got a number of documents marked as Exhibits P/1 to P/27. 6. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegations, examined as many as 17 witnesses and got a number of documents marked as Exhibits P/1 to P/27. 6. Subsequently, the matter was transferred from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banswara (hereinafter referred as the "learned trial Court"). The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating material brought against him and took the stand of total denial and false implication. However, he chose not to adduce any evidence on record. 7. After hearing learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and order of sentence dated 24.2.2011, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as aforementioned. 8. On an appeal being preferred, assailing the conviction and sentence, the learned appellate Court basically posed two questions, viz., 1) whether on 20.11.2001 at about 10.00-11.00 a.m. near Village Sangrod while plying the mini-bus No.RJ-03/P-0754 rash and negligently and then finally bumping it in a pit resulted to grievous injuries and two deaths too, as well as put the boarders in mental and psychological trauma. After analyzing the evidence, the appellate Court came to conclusion that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused being the driver of a mini-bus remained extremely reluctant and ignorant inspite of being several times requested and warned by the passengers and overturning the bus in a pit. 9. The learned appellate Court concurred with the view of the learned Magistrate that the accident had not occurred due to mechanical defect but because of active laxity and negligence on the part of the accused and the same had been established by the unimpeachable evidence of prosecution witnesses. Because of the aforesaid view, learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Dissatisfying from the impugned judgment, petitioner accused assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court and learned appellate Court while invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that prosecution failed to prove that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was driving the bus. 10. Dissatisfying from the impugned judgment, petitioner accused assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court and learned appellate Court while invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that prosecution failed to prove that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was driving the bus. Rooplal (PW-3) who is the relative of the deceased, alleged that vehicle was driven by the accused-Surender Singh, but Surender Singh was not present before the learned trial Court and the petitioner was not identified by him. Meetha (PW-4), Savita (PW-5) and Laxmi (PW-6) in their cross-examination admitted that the name of Surender Singh was not known to them and was divulged by Police as they clearly stated before the learned trial Court that they do not know who was driving the bus. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the fact that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was driving the bus, despite this fact, the learned courts below have convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment impugned which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that prosecution also failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident had occurred. There are major contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, the learned courts below have committed grave illegality, while convicting petitioner for alleged offences. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is suffering from agony of protected trial since last 12 years and has remained in custody for four months. He is 35 years old and have responsibility of the family, deceased and injured have received adequate compensation through Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, which was paid by Insurance Company. Hence, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the period undergone and in alternate, he may be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 13. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the analysis of the evidence made by the learned Magistrate as well as by the appellate Court are absolutely flawless, in no manner can be stated to be perversed. 13. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the analysis of the evidence made by the learned Magistrate as well as by the appellate Court are absolutely flawless, in no manner can be stated to be perversed. It is put-forward by him that there is ample evidence on record that the incident took place due to rash and negligent act of the appellant and the said finding, being appositely found and on scrutinizing the material placed on record, it does not warrant any interference by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that regarding careless, negligent and callous attitude that has been exhibited by the drivers who are expected to be professionals, the rate of road accidents that has extremely gone high and further, in the case in hand, when so many people have been injured, some of them have sustained grievous injuries and two lives have been lost, lenient delineation would be anathema to the concept of adequate punishment. 14. First, I shall deal with the fact of rash and negligent driving of the driver. It is undisputed that mini-bus was turned turtle on the said road without hitting or strucking with other vehicle that too without any mechanical failure. Om Prakash (PW-14) M.T.O., mechanically examined the mini-bus No.RJ-03/P-0754 and prepared report Ex.P/11 thereto stated that the engine oil was spread due to it, he could not check the mini-bus after driving. The road screen of right front side was broken, as also the foundation of engine and gear were broken and due to it, they were hanging on the chasis, popular shaft chilam were separated from the gear-case and mini-bus was damaged all over. None of the witness during cross-examination by the petitioner supported the fact that the occurrence took place due to mechanical failure. The plea of mechanical failure was not even suggested to the M.T.O. or other witnesses. Further, even petitioner himself did not take the stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure. Analyzing the evidence in entirety, the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has returned the finding regarding the rash and negligent driving. Further, even petitioner himself did not take the stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure. Analyzing the evidence in entirety, the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has returned the finding regarding the rash and negligent driving. The appellate Court, on further scrutiny has found that the evidence on record clearly shows that the driver raised the speed of mini-bus to over-take the private bus, in this process, he lost speed control resulting which it tumbled into the pit ahead. Both the courts below have opined that the accused ignored the speed limit and safety of the bus boarders. In my considered view, the analysis of the factual score in this regard cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, not liable to be unsettled by this Court. 15. The next limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prosecution has failed to prove about the cogent evidence that petitioner as driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court both relying on the statements of Rooplal (PW-3) and Mithalal (PW-4), who were the passengers of the mini-bus stated that Rooplal (PW-3) was standing in the mini-bus behind the driver holding the angile and clearly stated that Surender Singh was driving the said vehicle, whom he can identify and during course of trial he identified accused. Mithalal (PW-4) clearly stated that he knows Surender Singh who is the resident of nearby village and was driving the mini-bus. Further, Kherula Khan (PW-12), Investigating Officer, clearly stated that during investigation in pursuance of notice issued by him under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P/9, the registered owner of mini-bus bearing registration No.RJ-03/P-0754 Sukhlal (registered owner of mini-bus) clearly stated that at the time of accident Surender Singh was driving the mini-bus. 16. During cross-examination on behalf of petitioner no suggestion was given to (PW-3) Rooplal, (PW-4) Mithalal and (PW-12) Kherula Khan, Investigating Officer, regarding the fact that Surender Singh was not driving the mini-bus in question at the relevant time. Even in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he did not deny this fact. 16. During cross-examination on behalf of petitioner no suggestion was given to (PW-3) Rooplal, (PW-4) Mithalal and (PW-12) Kherula Khan, Investigating Officer, regarding the fact that Surender Singh was not driving the mini-bus in question at the relevant time. Even in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he did not deny this fact. In absence of cross-examination from the witnesses, on this fact and when the witnesses clearly stated that Surender Singh was driving the mini-bus at the relevant time and accused did not rebut this fact so it is proved that Surender Singh was driving the vehicle. 17. There is a concurrent finding of both the courts below, regarding driving the mini-bus by petitioner accused at the relevant time and regarding his rash and negligent act. 18. In Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1975 SC 1960 ), the scope of invoking jurisdiction of the High Court in criminal revision was examined and it was held in a case involving vehicular accident as follows: "The question whether the accused was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. While the Magistrate, and the Additional Sessions Judge arrived on assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of bus by the accused and the High Court even though justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence reviewed the same in order to justify itself that there was evidence in support of the finding and that the finding was not perverse, came to the conclusion that the evidence established the death of the deceased was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the accused." 19. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu and Ors. ( AIR 1979 SC 663 ) it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the trial Court or the Sessions Judge. 20. ( AIR 1979 SC 663 ) it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the trial Court or the Sessions Judge. 20. In State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 it was held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same, unless, any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 21. After analyzing the evidence in detail adduced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court during trial and material available on record and after giving forthwith consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels. In the light of above pronouncements and discussions there seems no manifested error in the conclusions or in analyzing the evidence by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court. 22. The last plank of the submission for the learned counsel for the petitioner is that accused-petitioner was a young man of 24 years at the time of the occurrence and in the meantime, he also entered into wedlock and, therefore, maintaining of substantive sentence would be inapposite, and in fitness of things, it should be restricted to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that he has been facing trial for the last 12 years. Hence, it is contended that he should be given benefit of Probation under the Probation Offenders Act, 1958. 23. The aforesaid submission, in my considered opinion, requires a careful and cautions examination. What is basically sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner is that there are mitigating circumstances warranting lenient treatment. As I perceive, two aspects, namely, (i) the age of the accused at the time of the accident; and (ii) his present marital status, have been highlighted as mitigating factors. What is basically sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner is that there are mitigating circumstances warranting lenient treatment. As I perceive, two aspects, namely, (i) the age of the accused at the time of the accident; and (ii) his present marital status, have been highlighted as mitigating factors. Before I dwell upon whether these two aspects should be regarded as extenuating factors to reduce the sentence in a crime of this nature in the present social context, I think it apt to refer to certain authorities in the field. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to the accused-convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Harayana (2000) 2 RCR (Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC in causing death of human beings by rash and negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are read as under: "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 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO 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." Thereafter, the Court proceeded to highlight what is expected of a professional driver: "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 no 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 should 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." 25. In State of Karnataka vs. Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538 : 1987 SCC 861, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not allow a sentence of fine imposed on a driver who was convicted under Section 304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed and said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being in that case the Hon'ble Apex Court enhanced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposed a fine. 26. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR (Cri.) 50 = 2008(3) RLW 2281 (SC) and the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was denied to the accused to commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Petitioner-accused drove the vehicle in laxious manner resulting in causality where two people died and 19 injured, hence in view of peculiar facts of this present case and in view of the legal proposition, as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir's Case (supra) and in B. Nagabhushanam's case (supra) petitioner-accused does not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders act. 27. In State of Karnataka vs. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 , while dealing with the concept of adequate punishment in relation to an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that considerations 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 justice dispensation system. It needs to be pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. It needs to be pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the driver of a Motor Vehicle for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 28. In Sevaka Perumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471 , it has been emphasized that undue sympathy resulting in imposition of inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. 29. In Jashubha Bharatsingh Gohil & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 353 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, adverting to the new challenges of sentencing, opined that the courts are constantly faced with the situation where they are required to answer to new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet those challenges. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. 30. In State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738 , it has been ruled that if the accused is found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on guard to ensure that he should not escape from the clutches of law so easily. The sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course, the courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to the larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system. 31. In State of M.P. vs. Saleem alias Chamaru and Anr. 31. In State of M.P. vs. Saleem alias Chamaru and Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 554 , it has been ruled that the object should be to protect society and the avowed object of law is achieved by imposing appropriate sentence to deter the criminal. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. 32. Yet again in B. Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 5 SCC 730 = 2008(3) RLW 2281 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court, taking note of the fact that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, opined that six months' simple imprisonment and a direction to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-A; and simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be shocking. 33. Recently, in State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 182 = 2012(3) RLW 2606 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of sentencing, has stated thus : "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." 34. In Alister Anthony Pariera vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 , it has been laid down that sentencing is an important task in relation to criminal justice dispensation system. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence, commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy in deterrence and correction. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy in deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. It has been further opined that the principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, the proportion between crime and punishment bears the most relevant influence in the determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including the social interest and conscience of the society for award of appropriate sentence. 35. In State TR. P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 7 SCC 120 = 2013(1) RLW 629 (SC), Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, in his separate opinion, pertaining to the conception of adequate sentencing, has expressed thus: "Law demands that the offender should be adequately punished for the crime, so that it can deter the offender and other persons from committing similar offences. Nature and circumstances of the offence; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offence; to afford adequate deterrence to the conduct and to protect the public from such crimes are certain factors to be considered while imposing the sentence." 36. From the aforesaid authorities, it is luminous that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its concern on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of commission of offences regard being had to the nature of the offence and demand of the conscience of the society. That apart, the concern has been to impose adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of the IPC. It is worthy to note that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have been taken into consideration but the said aspect is dependent on the facts of each case. As the trend of authorities would show, the proficiency in professional driving is emphasized upon and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear pre-vails all around. As the trend of authorities would show, the proficiency in professional driving is emphasized upon and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear pre-vails all around. The negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective. When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious, can have night-marish effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Sec.357(3) with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced, has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence. 37. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattiram & Ors. vs. State of M.P. through Inspector of Police, AIR 2012 SCW 1722, though in a different context, has stated that criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the view point of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries. It is the duty of the court to see that the victim's right is protected. We may note with profit that an appropriate punishment works as an eye-opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like "flies to the wanton boys". We may note with profit that an appropriate punishment works as an eye-opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like "flies to the wanton boys". They totally forget that the lives of many are in their hands, and the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an indecent burial by their rash and negligent act. 38. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is the duty of the Court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored. In Siriya alias Shri Lal vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2008 SC 231), it has been held as follows : "Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be - a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be." 39. In view of the aforesaid, I have to weight whether the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the mitigating factors deserves acceptance. Compassion is being sought on the ground of young age and mercy is being invoked on the foundation of family responsibilities. The date of occurrence is in the month of November, 2001. The scars on the collective cannot be said to have been forgotten. In the present case, the petitioner-accused's act has taken lives of two innocent persons namely Rakesh and Habji Garasiya and sustained injuries to 19 other people. The date of occurrence is in the month of November, 2001. The scars on the collective cannot be said to have been forgotten. In the present case, the petitioner-accused's act has taken lives of two innocent persons namely Rakesh and Habji Garasiya and sustained injuries to 19 other people. Weighing the individual difficulty as against the social order, collective conscience and the duty of the Court, I am disposed to think that the adequate sentence affirmed by the learned appellate Court does not warrant any interference and, accordingly I concur with the same. 40. Consequently, the revision petition, being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.