JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2004, whereby he has affirmed the judgment dated 1.3.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi in police challan No. 531-I/1998. The present petitioner Vinod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as accused) was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 1.3.1998, during Shivratri Festival, a cultural program was organized at Seri Manch, Mandi by the District Administration. On the same day, at around 11:00 P.M., accused Vinod Kumar while driving Maruti Car No. HP- 33-2033 came from Chauhta Bazar Mandi towards Gandhi Chowk in a very rash and negligent manner. It is further case of the prosecution that while driving, he was drunk. As per prosecution story, a speeding car being driven by the accused firstly hit PW-10 Smt Pushaplata at Gandhi Chowk and then the car struck against PW-4 Shri Ram Singh, who fell down the road. It is also case of the prosecution that after the aforesaid incident, car struck against the parked scooter (LML Vespa) and lastly, after hitting/breaking railing of the road vehicle stopped on the retaining wall with its two tyres hanging in the air. In this incident, Smt. Pushaplata and Shri Ram Singh sustained injuries and one parked Scooter got also damaged. 3. As per story of the prosecution, the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused who was under the influence of liquor while driving the aforesaid car. It has also come on record that the Head Constable PW-15 H.C. Gandhi Ram who was discharging his duties during the cultural program organized on the eve of Shivratri Festival, had actually recorded the statements. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 1.3.1998 HC Gandhi Ram recorded the statement of Constable PW-1Shri Joginder Pal, under Section 154 Cr.PC. Shri Joginder Pal stated that he was posted as Gunman in the office of Divisional Commissioner Mandi. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 1.3.1998 HC Gandhi Ram recorded the statement of Constable PW-1Shri Joginder Pal, under Section 154 Cr.PC. Shri Joginder Pal stated that he was posted as Gunman in the office of Divisional Commissioner Mandi. He stated in his statement that he had come to see the cultural program in Seri Manch, Mandi and when around 11:00 PM went for urination, one Maruti car bearing No. HP-33-2033 came at a very fast speed from the side of Chauhta Bazar Mandi towards Gandhi Chowk and hit a lady, who fell down on the road and from there, the driver of the aforementioned car drove car towards other side of the road and struck with a person and parked scooter near the pole of the electricity transformer. He further stated that after breaking the railings of the road, the vehicle stopped and its two front wheels were hanging in air while other two tyres remained on the road. On the basis of the statement of PW-1 Joginder Pal, FIR was registered against the accused at Police Station Sadar, Mand, and the matter was investigated by PW-15 HC Gandhi Ram. On completion of investigation SHO Police Station Sadar filed Challan under Section 279, 377 and 330 IPC and Section 185 of MV Act in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mandi for trial. 4. The court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mandi taking cognizance of the matter framed charge against the accused and after appreciating the evidence on record concluded the trial and convicted the accused and sentenced him as below: “The convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act and in case of default in payment of fine the convict shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for each of the above offences for which the fine is not paid. All the sentences shall run concurrently ” 5. All the sentences shall run concurrently ” 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 1.3.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced, detail whereof, has already been given hereinabove, the accused preferred appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, who also after perusing the entire evidence on record upheld the order dated 1.3.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi and the appeal of the accused was dismissed. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused against the judgment dated 23.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi on the various grounds: 6. Shri G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused vehemently argued that the judgment passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is against law and facts on record. He also argued that both the courts below have committed serious illegality while convicting the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act because there is no evidence which could suggest that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. He further stated that prosecution miserably failed to connect the commission of crime with the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and prosecution has not led any cogent evidence which could prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. Rather, evidence on record brought by prosecution is not reliable, trustworthy and cogent and he prayed for setting aside the judgment passed by both the courts below. He prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the charges framed against him. To the contrary Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General strenuously argued that the judgments passed by both the courts below do not warrant any interference of this Court as the same are passed on the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. Mr. Thakur also argued that while awarding sentence to the accused, both the courts below have been lenient and have awarded less punishment in the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. I have heard both the counsel representing the parties and gone through the record. Mr. Thakur also argued that while awarding sentence to the accused, both the courts below have been lenient and have awarded less punishment in the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. I have heard both the counsel representing the parties and gone through the record. Undisputedly, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., has very limited powers to reappreciate the evidence that too when both the courts below have carefully appreciated the evidence on record. But in the present case, where accused/petitioner has been convicted, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to critically examine each and every statement for reaching the fair and just decision. Though, during arguments, I perused the statement of one and all prosecution witnesses as well as statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. but same is being again discussed to ascertain whether finding recorded by both the courts below are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and same is neither perverse nor illegal. 8. In the instant case, prosecution with a view of prove its case, examined as many as 15 witnesses. 9. PW-1 Constable Joginder Pal was the first person to report the matter to the police. He was posted as Security Guard/Gunman with the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He categorically stated in his statement that he was watching the cultural program on the eve of Shivratri Festival as has already been mentioned above on the given date when he had gone outside from the program for urination, he could see one Maruti Car bearing No. HP-33-2033 coming from side of Chauhta Bazar at a high speed and that car struck with a lady, as a result whereof lady fell down. As per his version, the accused further did not stop and drove towards other side of the Pipal tree and struck with a person and a parked LML Vespa make Scooter. He also stated that thereafter, the vehicle struck with a railing of the road and after breaking the same, two of its tyres were hung in the air while other two remained on the road. He very categorically stated that the person with whom the car struck, fell below the road near the electricity transformer. He also stated the name of the driver of the car was Vinod Kumar i.e. accused. He very categorically stated that the person with whom the car struck, fell below the road near the electricity transformer. He also stated the name of the driver of the car was Vinod Kumar i.e. accused. He also stated that according to him, incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused who was driving the car under the influence of the liquor. His statement was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. i.e. Ext.PW1/A. Perusal of Ext.PW1/A suggests that during his examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination, he actually maintained/reiterated what he had stated in his statement. He also stated that at the spot of occurrence, bottle of liquor Director Special Ext. P1, Cooker Ext.P-2, Karchhi steel Ext.P-3, and two glasses Ext.P-4 were found inside the car which were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ext.PW1/D. During trial, he also identified the articles in the Court. Admittedly in his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were several persons standing at Chowk and around the Pipal tree and there was hustle and bustle on the road but in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination, he has been very specific and precise in stating that car had struck with a lady near Gandhi Chowk and thereafter with one person and a parked scooter. 10. PW-2 Shri Vipin Kumar, who was posted as Naib Nazir in D.C. office, Mandi was on duty in cultural program on the given date. He had parked his LML Vespa make scooter in front of the Piple tree along with the railing. He stated that he was informed by PW-5 Deshraj, District Nazir about his scooter and Ram Singh having been hit by Maruti Car. After listening, he immediately fled to the spot and found his scooter damaged. As per him, scooter and the vehicle were taken into possession by the police in his presence and he had signed the seizure memos. Admittedly, in his cross-examination, he stated that the accident had not taken place in his presence. 11. PW-3 Chaman Lal Photographer had taken the photographs Ext.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D and also produced negatives Ext.PW3/E to Ext.PW3/H. 12. Similarly, PW-4 Ram Singh who was working as Assistant Nazir in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi stated that while he was on his duty on the date of occurrence in the cultural program. 11. PW-3 Chaman Lal Photographer had taken the photographs Ext.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D and also produced negatives Ext.PW3/E to Ext.PW3/H. 12. Similarly, PW-4 Ram Singh who was working as Assistant Nazir in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi stated that while he was on his duty on the date of occurrence in the cultural program. When he was coming to take meal alongwith PW-5 Desh Raj towards Gandhi Chowk and when they reached in front of the Pipal tree then the Maruti Car came from the side of Chauhta Bazar and took turn from Gandhi Chowk and hit a lady and him and iron railing. With the result of the same, he fell down the road near the electricity transformer and became un-conscious. He categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of driver of the car. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated with precision that he had seen a car hitting a lady from a distance of about 10-15 meters which he came to know later on from Deshraj that the accused Vinod Kumar was driving the car. He further stated that he used to know the accused personally as he is the driver of three wheeler. 13. PW-5 Desh Raj in the statement stated that on 1.3.1998, while he was on duty as District Nazir of D.C. office Mandi in the cultural program at Seri Manch during Shivratri fair at about 10:50-10:55 P.M. he had gone to take meal along with PW-4 Ram Singh and when he reached in front of vegetable shop, then a Maruti Car hit a lady and there was noise and his attention was drawn toward that side. Thereafter, car struck with a juice bar and came towards them and struck with the parked scooter which fell down and then hit with Ram Singh PW-4 and railing was broken. Soon he fell down below the road in the Sankan Garden. He also stated that he was saved as he took himself to one side of the road. Accordingly to him, the car was being driven at an excessive speed. He also stated that car after breaking the railing hung in the wire of the electricity pole. PW-5 categorically stated that the accused was driving the car and he knew him by face. Accordingly to him, the car was being driven at an excessive speed. He also stated that car after breaking the railing hung in the wire of the electricity pole. PW-5 categorically stated that the accused was driving the car and he knew him by face. He also stated that accused was medically examined in his presence and he had consumed liquor at the time of the incident as the smell of liquor was emanating from the mouth of the accused. In his cross-examination, he also stated that one person was sitting with the accused on the front seat in that car. 14. PW-6 Mohan Lal stated that PW-7H.C. Gambhir Singh gave one nip sealed with seal ‘H’ to him and he deposited the same safely at CTL Kandaghat and obtained receipt which was handed over to MHC Gambhir Singh. 15. PW-7 HC Gambhir Singh Stated that he was posted as MHC at Police Station, Sadar, Mandi when this accident took place. According to him, Constable Narender Singh had deposited two glasses, one ‘karchi; one cooker and one bottle of English liquor and one nep sealed with seal ‘H’ which were safely kept by him in the Malkhana. He sent the nip to CTL Kandaghat through PW-6 LHC Mohan Lal for analysis. 16. PW-8 Shri G.D. Gaud was medical Superintendent at Zonal Hospital, Mandi, examined the injured who had conducted X-ray examination of the injured and had produced report Ext.PW8/C. As per his report, he had found fractures of proximal part on both bones of right leg. According to his version aforesaid fractures were also possible in motor vehicular accident. Though, in his cross-examination he admitted that these injuries were possible by fall on hard and rough surface from a height of about 11-12 feet. 17. PW-9 H.C. Natha Singh stated that accused was got medically examined on 2.3.1998 and the Medical Officer took the urine and blood samples of the accused and these bottles were sealed with seal “KEH” and were handed over to him which he further handed over to PW-7 MHC Gambhir Singh. According to him bottles remained safe till they remained in his possession. 18. According to him bottles remained safe till they remained in his possession. 18. PW-10 Smt. Pushaplata, who was actually injured in the incident in her statement stated that on 1.3.1998 she had gone with her husband to the house of Shri Pawanesh Kashyap at Moti Bazar, Mandi and at about 10.30PM when she was coming back with her husband then one Maruti car came at a fast speed at Gandhi Chowk and struck with her, resulting thereof she became unconscious. She further stated that thereafter vehicle ran away from that place at a fast speed, whereafter she was given treatment in the hospital. In her cross-examination she admitted that there was big crowd at Chauhta Bazar at that time. She also stated in her cross-examination that since vehicle struck her from the back side, she could not see the vehicle but she categorically stated that vehicle had come at a very high speed. She stated that she does not know what actually happened after the incident and she does not know the name of the driver. She even did not know the number of the car. 19. PW-10/A Constable Virender Singh was a formal witness who had deposited case property. He stated that case property was deposited with him by MC Bhola Shankar which he further deposited with MSC Gambhir Singh. 20. PW-11 Dr. Gopal Sharma who had conducted the medical examination of PW-4 Ram Singh i.e. other person, who got injured and fell down after being hit by the Maruti car in question and issued MLC Ext.11/A. He also examined PW-10 Smt. Pushaplata and issued MLC Ex.PW11/B. He also examined accused Vinod Kumar and issued MLC Ext.PW11/C. He categorically stated that accused had consumed alcohol. He also stated that he had preserved the blood samples of the accused and handed over the same to the police. He in his examination-in-chief stated that during examination he found that smell of liquor was coming from the mouth of the accused but the accused was not intoxicated. 21. PW-12 HC Brestu Ram was a formal prosecution evidence as he had conducted mechanical examination of the said Maruti Car and given report Ext.PW12/A. 22. PW-13 SI Bishambar Dutt had recorded the FIR Ext.PW13/A after receiving ruqua Ext.PW1/A. 23. PW-14 Bhola Shankar stated that I.O. deposited the case property with him and which was further deposited by him at Police Station Sadar, Mandi. 24. PW-13 SI Bishambar Dutt had recorded the FIR Ext.PW13/A after receiving ruqua Ext.PW1/A. 23. PW-14 Bhola Shankar stated that I.O. deposited the case property with him and which was further deposited by him at Police Station Sadar, Mandi. 24. PW-15 Head Constable Gandhi Ram who actually conducted the investigation of the present case and recorded the statement of Constable Joginder Pal PW-1, under Section 154 Cr.PC. At the very instance, he also prepared site plan and recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses. In his cross-examination, he stated that on that day traffic was regulated to one way. He also stated that the accused was caught by several persons but as per his statement no one gave beating to the accused. He also stated that the accused was alone in the vehicle and two tyres of the vehicle were in the air and two were on the road. He stated that injured persons were on the spot when he reached there and thereafter he was taken to the hospital. PW-15 in his statement also stated that sample of urine and blood were sent for medical examination from where report Ext.PW15/B has been prepared. Perusal of Ext.PW15/B and Ext.PW15/C clearly depicts that accused was under the influence of liquor. 25. After careful scrutiny of the of the prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there was overwhelming evidence available on record to suggest that the accused was driving the alleged Maruti car in rash and negligent manner that too under the influence of the liquor. I have no hesitation to conclude here that in the given set of circumstances, prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and accused has been rightly convicted by both the courts below. 26. It is evident from the evidence on record that accused was driving the Maruti Car bearing No. HP- 23-2033 at the time of incident in most rash and negligent way even accused himself has not denied the occurrence of the incident and has admitted that when he was driving the vehicle in question, there was big crowd at Chauhta Bazar Mandi that means he was conscious of the fact that high speed driving would or may result in the accident causing injuries to the persons moving /walking on the public place. PW-1 Joginder Pal has been very candid in stating that on 1.3.1998 when he was there to watch the cultural event at Seri Manch at around 11:PM he saw a Car coming in high speed from Chauhta Bazar which hit one lady. He has very categorically stated that Car was being driven in a very high speed by the accused and after hitting one lady also hit a person and a parked LML Vespa make Scooter. Accused-driver did not stop there rather he tried to flee from the spot but after striking/breaking the railing, the Maruti Car got struck with two of its tyres hanging in air and others on the road. PW-1 also stated that one bottle of Director Special English Liquor was also recovered from the car including other articles as has been mentioned above. 27. After careful examination of the evidence led on record by the prosecution and in totality of the circumstance, it can be safely inferred that vehicle in question was being driven by the accused in most rash and negligent manner that too under the influence of the liquor which fact cannot be denied and has been duly proved with the report given by Ext.PW15/B. It has also been proved on record that injuries had been caused to PW-10 Pushaplata and PW-4 Ram Singh. Even PW-11 Dr. Gopal Sharma who had medically examined PW-4 while issuing MLC Ext.PW11/C MLC of the accused, also confirmed the injuries caused on the person of PW-10 Pushaplata and PW-4 Ram Singh vide MLC Ext.PW11/A and Ext.PW11/B. PW-8 GD Gaud also gave his opinion on the basis of X-ray examination of PW-4 Ram Singh that there was fracture on the right leg. 28. In view of the statements given by PWs 1, 4, 5 and 10, it is proved beyond doubt that accused was driving the Maruti Car in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of the liquor which resulted in hitting of PW-10 and PW-4 as discussed earlier. 28. In view of the statements given by PWs 1, 4, 5 and 10, it is proved beyond doubt that accused was driving the Maruti Car in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of the liquor which resulted in hitting of PW-10 and PW-4 as discussed earlier. Consequently, in view of the complete scrutiny of the evidence by me, I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by both the courts below but at this stage learned counsel representing the accused prayed that since the accused had remained in custody for two days, as such lenient view may be taken and the remaining sentence as awarded by the courts below may be treated undergone. He 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 14 years have passed after passing of the judgment dated 1.3.2002, whereby the accused was convicted and he has already suffered agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Palsra, also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus 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. 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 behavior 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. 29. Learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Mahaboob Basha versus State of Karnataka 2014 (10) SCC 244 . Perusal of the judgment cited by Mr. Palsra shows that Hon’ble Apex Court while maintaining the Judgment passed by the court below observed in para-9 as under :- 9. Interference by the Supreme Court with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below is not warranted, except where there is some serious infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and the findings are perverse. We see no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the learned courts below convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. Insofar as conviction of the appellant under Sections 323 and 504 IPC is concerned, only fine was imposed on him. Insofar as the conviction under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to undergo SI for six months by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. The judgment of the High Court is silent about the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC as confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence imposed on him for the said offence. 30. The judgment of the High Court is silent about the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC as confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence imposed on him for the said offence. 30. However, in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the totality of the facts and circumstances reduced the conviction of appellant to the period already undergone by him and imposed fine to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana 2000 (5) SCC 82 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- 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 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. 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. 14. 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. 14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our inability to lean towards the benevolent provision in Section 4 of the PO Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 31. This Court cannot loose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus 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 recognizes. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 recognizes 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 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. 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.” 32. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the law cited by Shri G.R. Palsra, learned 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 practice 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 that too under the influence of the liquor, no leniency can be shown to the accused. Even in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as S.Mahaboob Basha versus State of Karnataka 2014 (10) SCC 244 relied upon by Mr. Palsra, while reducing the sentence had awarded fine to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable in two installments. Even in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as S.Mahaboob Basha versus State of Karnataka 2014 (10) SCC 244 relied upon by Mr. Palsra, while reducing the sentence had awarded fine to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable in two installments. But now in view of the latest law i.e. 2015 (5) SCC 182 , this court sees no reasons or has power in given facts and circumstances of the case to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court below. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order dated 21.7.2008, passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the court below was suspended, is hereby vacated and the petitioner-accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, vide Judgment dated 1.3.2002 in police challan No. 531-1/1998. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.