Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2145 (HP)

Subhash Chand v. State of H. P.

2016-10-03

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J.(Oral) The present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 23.10.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 32-K/X/2002, affirming the judgment dated 20.9.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra, District Kangra HP, in Criminal Case No. 387-II/96/93, whereby the accused-petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and for period of six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that on 17.3.1993, at about 7:30 pm, police on having received information from the Medical Officer, S.D.H Kangra, visited the Hospital, where injured Bhagwan Dass, was admitted after the accident. However, fact remains that Medical Officer opined in writing that injured is not fit to make any statement. Accordingly, statement of the complainant Swroop Kumar was recorded, who stated to the police that on 17.3.1993 at about 7:00 pm, he along with late Sh. Bhagwan Dass was returning to Mataur from Kachhiari when scooter bearing No. JK-02-5747 came from Mataur side being driven by the accused-petitioner. The complainant stated to the police that wife of the accused was pillion rider along with child and the scooter was being driven on a very high speed in rash and negligent manner. As per the complainant, petitioner-accused while negotiating the curve hit deceased Bhagwan Dass by coming on the wrong side, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his leg and fell down. The complainant also reported that wife of the accused and his child also sustained injuries. The complainant specifically reported to the police that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, who was driving scooter bearing No. JK-02-5747. On the basis of aforesaid complaint having been made by Swroop Kumar, police lodged formal FIR. Head Constable Krishan Dutt completed the investigation after visiting the spot and also prepared the site plan, and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. On the basis of aforesaid complaint having been made by Swroop Kumar, police lodged formal FIR. Head Constable Krishan Dutt completed the investigation after visiting the spot and also prepared the site plan, and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. But unfortunately, injured Bhagwan Dass succumbed to injuries on the next date of the accident and the case was converted in the offence punishable under Section 279/304 of the IPC. Police also took into possession the scooter and got the same mechanically examined. The I.O. also obtained MLCs and autopsy report from the Hospital. Police after completion of investigation found the petitioner accused guilty of having committed offences under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and accordingly, presented the Challan before the competent court of law. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II Kangra, District Kangra (HP), after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused person put a notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of having committed offence under the Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description already given above. 4. The present petitioner-accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed appeal under Section 374 of Cr.PC before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, who vide judgment dated 23.10.2007, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition before this Court. 5. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Thakur, further contended that learned trial Court below while recording conviction of the petitioner accused misread and mis-interpreted the statements of the witnesses, especially, the statement of the pillion rider DW1, who categorically before the learned trial Court stated that deceased Bhagwan Dass was not hit by the Scooter but by a Maruti Car, which was coming from Mataur side in very high speed. Mr. Mr. Thakur further stated that the learned trial Court lent undue credence to the statements of the prosecution witnesses while convicting the accused because there was overwhelming evidence on record to suggest that the deceased Bhagwan Dass was not hit by the Scooter, rather, he was hit by a Marti car, which was not taken into custody by the police intentionally with a view to help the driver of the Maruti Car. Mr. Vivek Further stated that there is no evidence qua the identification, if any, of the petitioner-accused either by deceased or by any of the prosecution witness because none of them had actually saw him at the time of alleged accident. Hence, learned trial Court committed grave illegality while recording conviction of the present petitioner-accused on the mere statement of interested witnesses. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Thakur, invited attention of this Court to the statement given by the PWs to demonstrate that material PWs who were allegedly eye witnesses candidly admitted in their examination in chief and cross examination that they were related to Bhagwan Dass and as such, Court below while recording conviction of the petitioner ought to have exercised due care and caution while placing reliance on the depositions made by the interested witnesses. He also invited attention of this Court to the spot map to demonstrate that there were number of shops in and around the site of the occurrence but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, no independent witness/person from those shops was cited by the prosecution as a witness to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Thakur, vehemently contended that there are material contradictions in the depositions made by the PWs, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution and no conviction, if any, could be recorded by the Court below merely on the basis of statement of PW1 to PW3, who are not trustworthy, rather interested witnesses. Mr. Thakur, prayed that in case this Court comes to conclusion that accused is guilty of having committed offences, he being first offender may be given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, representing the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the courts below. Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, representing the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the courts below. Mr. Rupinder, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further contended that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court, is warranted, where it stands proved on record that accused had hit the deceased Bhagwan Dass by Scooter. Mr. Rupinder, also opposed the prayer of the accused for extending him benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He also reminded this Court that it has very limited powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC to re-appreciate the evidence, especially when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:- "In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the 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 can 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 when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record 8. True, it is that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 Cr.PC while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the instant case, where accused has been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned courts below are not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 9. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order." 10. From the conjoint reading of pleadings available on record as well as impugned judgments passed by the courts below and submissions having been made by the counsel representing the parties, it is undisputed that deceased Bhangwan Dass succumbed to injuries caused to him due to accident occurred on 17.3.1993 near Mataur, District Kangra. It is also not disputed that Scooter in question was being driven by the petitioner accused at that relevant time. The petitioner accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC has not disputed the accident but in his defence, he stated that deceased Bhagwan Dass got injured due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car which came in high speed from Mataur side and at the first instance, hit deceased and thereafter scooter which was being driven by him, as result of which, he, his wife and child sustained injuries. Perusal of statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC clearly suggests that the accident has been not disputed by him but stated that injuries to deceased Bhagwan Dass were caused by Maruti Car driver not by him. 11. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire evidence led on record by the respective parties and it has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that Bhagwan Dass suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused. Though, petitioner accused made an attempt to demonstrate that at that relevant time, one Maruti Car being run by an unidentified person was coming from the Mataur side, who at the first instance hit Bhagwan Dass and then the scooter but this Court was unable to lay its hand to any evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the petitioner-accused to demonstrate that in the said accident, one Maruti Car was also involved and as such, this Court finds it difficult to differ with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. 12. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as ten witnesses. PW1 Swroop Kumar, who is an eye witness specifically, stated that he was going towards Mataur from Kachhiari with deceased Bhagwan Dass at the time of the alleged accident. 12. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as ten witnesses. PW1 Swroop Kumar, who is an eye witness specifically, stated that he was going towards Mataur from Kachhiari with deceased Bhagwan Dass at the time of the alleged accident. He stated that they were going on the left side of the road and in the meantime, Scooter in question came in high speed and hit Bhagwan Dass, as a result of which, he suffered injuries and later on passed away. He also stated that he made his statement Ext.PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.PC on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded by the police before carrying out investigation in the matter. In his cross examination, he admitted that, Bhagwan Dass was bleeding when he was brought in the Hospital. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him by the defence that Maruti Car came from Palampur Side and dashed with Bhagwan Dass. He also denied that thereafter car hit the scooter. He also denied the suggestion that scooter skidded due to grit lying on the road and thereby the scooter went towards right side of the road. However, in his cross-examination and examination-in-chief, he specifically stated that scooter was at very high speed and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused because he came on wrong side of the road and hit the deceased. He also denied the suggestion that accident caused due to the fault of the car driver and not due to the fault of the accused-petitioner. 13. PW2, Mehar Chand, another witness also stated that Scooter came from Mattaur side when deceased and one other person were coming on the road. He further stated that Scooter rider hit the injured as a result of which, he later on succumbed to injuries. It has also come in his statement that scooter was in very high speed and accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. In his cross -examination, he specifically stated that Swroop Kumar is not known to him and he was present at the site at the time of accident. He like PW1 denied the suggestion put to him by the defence that car came from Palampur side and hit the deceased and thereafter hit the scooter. In his cross -examination, he specifically stated that Swroop Kumar is not known to him and he was present at the site at the time of accident. He like PW1 denied the suggestion put to him by the defence that car came from Palampur side and hit the deceased and thereafter hit the scooter. He also denied the suggestion put to him that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. PW2 categorically denied the suggestion put to him that accident was caused by Maruti Car. PW3 Swarna Devi also stated that at 6:30 pm, a scooter came from Mataur side at very high speed and hit Bhagwan Dass by coming on wrong side and due to injury; he succumbed to injury. In her cross-examination, she also denied that car came from Palampur side and due to skid the Car hit the scooter and accident occurred due to high speed of the Car. Aforesaid witness also denied the suggestion put to her that she is deposing falsely. 14. PW4, Dr. A.B. Gupta, Medical Officer, Hospital Kangra, stated that he examined the injured Sushma Devi wife of the accused, resident of Kholi vide MLC Ext.PW4/A, Banti, Son of Subhash Chand resident of Kholi vide MLC Ext.PW4/B as well as Subash, Son of Amar Singh Resident of Kholi vide MLC Ext.PW4/C and opined the nature of injuries to be simple on their person. However, He also stated that he examined deceased Bhagwan Dass vide MLC Ext.PW/D and nature of the injuries was found to be grievous on his person and he was referred to Dharamshala. PW10, Dr. Sulakshna Puri, Medical Officer conducted post mortem of the dead body of deceased Bhagwan Dass vide postmortem report Ext.PW10/A. 15. PW5 Durga Dass, mechanically examined the scooter and gave report vide Ext.PW5/A. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot tell that handle of scooter could break due to collusion with the Vehicle. 16. PW6 ASI, Duni Chand, PW7 HC Uttam Chand and PW8 Lekh Raj are formal witnesses and may not be relevant at this juncture while examining the correctness of the judgments passed by the courts below. 17. PW9 ASI Krishan Chand, I.O., stated that he, on receiving information from the SDH, Kangra on 17.3.1993, recorded the statement of Swroop Kumar, under Section 154 Cr.PC, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW6/A was recorded. 17. PW9 ASI Krishan Chand, I.O., stated that he, on receiving information from the SDH, Kangra on 17.3.1993, recorded the statement of Swroop Kumar, under Section 154 Cr.PC, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW6/A was recorded. He also stated that he had moved an application (Ext.PW9/B) for taking statement of the injured but same was declined by the Medical Officer because the deceased was not fit to make any statement. He stated that the scooter was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW-8/A and site plan Ext.PW9/C was also prepared. In his cross examination, he stated that he cannot say that he had recorded the statement of Smt. Sushma however, he later on stated that he recorded the statements of all injured. He denied the suggestion that witness Swroop Kumar was called from veerta. He categorically denied the suggestion that Maruti Car came from Palampur side and hit Bhagwan Dass and thereafter hit with the scooter. He also denied the suggestion that the car was not traced and a false case was made against the accused and accident occurred due to the fault of the Car driver. 18. Conjoint reading of all the prosecution witnesses, as discussed above, clearly suggests that on 17.3.1993, deceased Bhagwan Dass was hit by Scooter in question being driven by the petitioner accused, who was allegedly driving scooter in most rash and negligent manner at high speed. PWs 1 to 3, who are happened to be the eye witnesses unequivocally, stated that on 17.3.1993, at about 6:30pm to 7:00pm, a scooter being driven by the petitioner-accused, hit Bhagwan Dass, as a result of which, he suffered injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. Cross-examination conducted upon these PWs nowhere suggests that defence was able to extract anything contrary from the PWs. Though defence by way of putting suggestion that deceased was hit by Maruti Car coming from Pamalpur side made an attempt to demonstrate that deceased was not hit by Scooter being driven by the petitioner accused, rather he was hit by Maruti Car which after hitting the deceased hit scooter as a result of which petitioner, his wife and child also sustained simple injuries but none of the PWs admitted the aforesaid suggestion put to them by the defence. Version put forth on behalf of these eye witnesses stands fully corroborated by the statement of Doctors, who in unequivocal term stated that he had examined the deceased, who had suffered grievous injury and as a result of which, he passed away. PW10 Ms. Sulakshna Puri proved on record post mortem report Ext.PW10/A. Similarly, perusal of statement given by I.O. PW9 fully corroborates the version put forth by the aforesaid material witnesses. Even in the cross-examination conducted on the I.O. nowhere suggests that defence was able to extract anything contrary to what he stated in examination in chief. 19. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that though defence by putting suggestion to PWs that deceased was hit by Car attempted to demonstrate that Bhagwan Dass suffered injuries due to hit by Maruti Car but this Court was unable to lay its hand to any evidence, be it ocular or documentary on record adduced by the defence suggestive of the fact that in the said accident, Maruti car was also involved. DW1 Smt. Sushma Devi, wife of the accused, at that relevant time was pillion rider along with her child stated that accident occurred on 17.3.1993 with Maruti Car coming from Palampur Side in a very high speed. She stated that Car hit the deceased and thereafter scooter. She also stated that Car came from wrong side, however, in her cross examination she admitted that she was admitted in hospital and accused was also admitted. According to her she was also medically examined vide MLC Ext.PW4/A. She also stated that road was metalled and wide enough but categorically admitted in cross examination that the accused applied breaks with force in order to stop the scooter. It has also come in her statement that she as well as her husband (accused-petitioner) did not lodge any complaint against the police for not registering the case against the Maruti Car, who allegedly hit the deceased. Save and except, statement of DW1, there is no evidence on record to suggest that deceased was hit by car as claimed by DW1 and petitioner-accused. But careful perusal of statement of DW1 and the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC clearly suggests that scooter being driven by the petitioner-accused was involved in the accident, wherein deceased Bhagwan Dass lost his life. But careful perusal of statement of DW1 and the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC clearly suggests that scooter being driven by the petitioner-accused was involved in the accident, wherein deceased Bhagwan Dass lost his life. None of the PWs corroborated the version put forth on behalf of the defence that deceased was hit by the Car, rather, all the PWs unequivocally stated that deceased Bhagwan Dass was hit by scooter being driven by petitioner rashly and negligently in high speed. Even the close scrutiny of the cross examination conducted on these PWs nowhere suggests that defence at any point of time put suggestion to them that they were falsely deposing against the petitioner accused. Moreover, defence was not able to prove on record motive, if any, of the PWs to depose falsely against the petitioner. 20. It has come in the statement of DW1 that she resides near the residence of the deceased. It is not understood that why person from same locality would implicate the petitioner accused falsely. Apart from above, this Court sees no reason for PW2 to falsely state that deceased suffered injuries due to being hit by the scooter and not by the Car. Moreover, all the PWs categorically denied the suggestion that deceased was hit by the car at the first instance, this Court after examining the entire evidence led on record by the parties is of the view that story of Maruti Car was brought in by the defence deliberately to confuse the entire issue. It is also not understood that if police had not purposely registered case against the Maruti car driver why petitioner did not take any step to lodge complaint against the police mentioning therein that serious irregularity has been allegedly committed by the police. 21. This Court after perusing the entire evidence is fully convinced that deceased was hit by the scooter, being driven rashly and negligently by the accused and story of Maruti Car was concocted just to create confusion and as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by the courts below and same deserves to be upheld. 22. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused also prayed that accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view his age and his being first offender. 22. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused also prayed that accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view his age and his being first offender. He also stated that mitigating circumstance in this case is that more than 23 years have passed after happening of that incident and 14 years have been passed after passing the judgment dated 20.9.2002, whereby the accused was convicted and he has already suffered agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Thakur, also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Yudhbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1998(1)S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under: 9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons. 23. This Court also cannot lose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 . Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons. 23. This Court also cannot lose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 . While dealing with the accident case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken serious view of reduction of sentences by the courts below. Their lordships in the aforesaid judgment in paras No. 1, 14, 24 and 25 have held as under; "1. Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, had to say: "Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them." Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries back, it has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour, in today's society. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. If any one defies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending on the concept of proportionality that the law recognises. It can never be forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by the competent legislatures, subject to judicial scrutiny within constitutionally established parameters, is to protect the collective interest and save every individual that forms a constituent of the collective from unwarranted hazards. It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. At times certain crimes assume more accent and gravity depending on the nature and impact of the crime on the society. No court should ignore the same being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. No court should ignore the same being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. In this context one may recapitulate the saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardizo "Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser too". And, therefore, the requisite norm has to be the established principles laid down in precedents. It is neither to be guided by a sense of sentimentality nor to be governed by prejudices. 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh (supra) wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Section 304A, 337, 279 of IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone that is 15 days. The court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction:- (Balwinder Singh case, SCC pp. 186-87, para12) "12..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. 13. 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 driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. 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." (Dalbir Singh case, SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 &13)" 24. Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognises the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months 25. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months 25. Before parting with the case we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the "Emperors of all they survey". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as "larger than life". In such obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the law-makers should scrutinize, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC, so with immense anguish." 24. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the law cited by Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate representing the accused in the present case, I am of the view that same cannot be made applicable in the present case for granting the benefit of Section 4 of probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited above has deprecated the practise of courts in settling the matter by awarding compensation or releasing the accused by giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that vehicle was driven by the accused in most rash and negligent manner, no leniency can be shown to the accused. 25. Consequently in view of the above, the judgments passed by the courts below are upheld as the same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record. 25. Consequently in view of the above, the judgments passed by the courts below are upheld as the same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, after noticing the fact that this incident had occurred on 17.3.1993 about 23 years back and keeping in mind the age of the petitioner, this court deems it fit to modify the sentence as imposed by the courts below to fifteen days in to for all the offences and petitioner-accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kangra, vide separate order dated 21.9.2002 and further modified by this Court vide this judgment. Needless to say that order dated 7.12.2007, passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the Court below was suspended, shall stand vacated automatically. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.