Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 705 (HP)

Ram Bhaj Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-05-06

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) has assailed the judgment dated 28.2.2009 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, District Sirmour at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 10-cr.A/10 of 2006, whereby the judgment dated 16.3.2006 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P in Criminal Case No. 91/2 of 2002/01 has been affirmed and petitioner-accused is convicted/sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months for an offence punishable u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The convict is further sentenced to simple imprisonment for a term of three months for an offence punishable u/s 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is further sentenced to simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence punishable u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner-accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All sentences shall run concurrently. 2. In nutshell, the story of the prosecution is that on 22.7.2001, a telephonic call was received at Police Station, Paonta Sahib intimating that accident has taken place involving Maruti Car and scooter near Badripur. Immediately, thereafter H.C. Ramesh Kumar-PW-13 along with other police officials went to the spot where he was informed about injured persons being taken to the hospital. Accordingly, PW-13, after reaching the Pawar Hospital at Paonta Sahib, got the statement of the complainant-Tejpal Singh recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. Complainant in his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC stated that when he was going on his scooter No. HP-17-7275 along with pillion rider Kuldeep Singh Kohli from Badripur towards Paonta Sahib, all of the sudden, a Maruti car being driven rashly and negligently came on the wrong side from the opposite side and hit against the scooter. On account of this collusion, scooter was dragged by the car to some distance and as result whereof, scooterist along with rider fell on the road and the tyre of the car crossed over the right leg of the pillion rider. Complainant also sustained injuries on his person. 3. On account of this collusion, scooter was dragged by the car to some distance and as result whereof, scooterist along with rider fell on the road and the tyre of the car crossed over the right leg of the pillion rider. Complainant also sustained injuries on his person. 3. Police after recording statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.PC lodged FIR No. 283/2001 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. Police got all the formalities completed during the investigation. Vehicle involved in the accident got medically examined vide Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B. Site plan Ext.PW13/A was prepared, photographs Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/H were taken. As per story of prosecution, police got the accused medically examined at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, although he smelled Alcohol but on chemical analysis, no intoxication was found. Police also got complainant as well as pillion rider medically examined vide Ext.PW-8/B and Ext.PW-8/A respectively. However, on 23.7.2001, unfortunately, pillion rider-Kuldeep Singh Kohli who had sustained simple and grievous injuries succumbed to the injuries. Complainant has also suffered simple injuries on his person. Police after completion of investigation, found accused guilty of rash and negligent driving and registered case as has already been mentioned. 4. Learned trial court below after perusal of material available on record framed charges against the accused under Section 337, 279 ad 304A IPC to which accused pleaded no guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Learned trial court after examining the prosecution witnesses as well as material evidence on record found accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as per description given above. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the sentence/conviction imposed by learned trial court, accused filed appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC in the court of learned Sessions Judge. However, same was dismissed and judgment of learned trial Court was upheld and affirmed. Hence, this present revision petition. 7. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused vehemently argued that judgments passed by the courts below are not sustainable at all and deserve to be quashed and set-aside as they are not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He further argued that material adduced on record by the prosecution nowhere suggests that the accused was driving the car in rash and negligent manner. Rather, it was the scooterist, negligence of whom caused accident and resulted in the death of pillion rider-Kuldeep Singh Kohli. He further argued that material adduced on record by the prosecution nowhere suggests that the accused was driving the car in rash and negligent manner. Rather, it was the scooterist, negligence of whom caused accident and resulted in the death of pillion rider-Kuldeep Singh Kohli. He also strenuously argued that the courts below while convicting the accused have heavily relied upon the prosecution witnesses who were close relative of the complainant and as such judgments passed by the courts below deserve to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the judgment passed by courts below and submitted that no intereference of this Court is called for, especially, in view of the fact that both the courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every statement brought on record by the prosecution. Mr. Negi, vigoursly argued that close scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses leaves no doubt that accused was actually driving rashly and negligently and as a result whereof, one person has died. He prayed that facts and circumstances of the case warrant no indulgence of this court and no lenient view can be taken in the present case when one person has lost his life. He also contended that this Court has very limited powers while exercising its powers under Section 397 Cr.PC to re-appreciate the evidence. 9. Admittedly, this Court has very limited powers to re-appreciate the evidence while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 Cr.PC. In the case, where accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment, this court with a sole view to reach fair and just conclusion that judgments rendered by courts below are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and the same are not perverse, it undertook exercise to critically examine the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 10. 10. 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 Versus 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 or 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.” 11. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that to dispel the adjudication/notion that judgment under challenge is not perverse, High Courts while exercising power under Section 397 Cr.PC, can re-appreciate the evidence. 12. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses in all. 13. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that to dispel the adjudication/notion that judgment under challenge is not perverse, High Courts while exercising power under Section 397 Cr.PC, can re-appreciate the evidence. 12. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses in all. 13. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC also suggests that he admitted that he was driving the Car from Paonta Sahib to Nahan side but he denied that he was driving the car in rash and negligent manner and he further stated that since there were pits on the road due to heavy rain, scooterist with a view to avoid those pits came in wrong side and struck against the Car. PW-4 Tejpal-complainant was driving the scooter on the ill-fated day stated that at about 10 PM when he was going on scooter along with Kuldeep Singh Kohli from Badripur to Paonta Sahib, a Maruti car came on wrong side of the road and hit against the scooter. As a result thereof, both of them fell down and sustained injuries. Later on, Kuldeep Singh Kohli, pillion rider died. In his statement he very categorically stated that he was driving scooter on his left side but it was hit by Maruti Car which was being driven rashly and negligently by accused on the wrong side. In his cross-examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that he took scooter to wrong side with a view to avoid the pits. Rather, reiterated that he was on the left side of road at the time of accident. 14. PWs-5 and 6 namely Virender and Pradeep Singh who were eye witnesses to the accident categorically stated that they were present near the site of occurrence at that relevant time and supported the story of the prosecution. According to them, scooter was being driven on its correct side and it was the car which was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road due to which accident took place and injuries were caused to the victims. They categorically stated that they saw the accident taking place. They denied in the cross-examination that Tej Pal Singh was driving the scooter on the wrong side of the road. They categorically stated that they saw the accident taking place. They denied in the cross-examination that Tej Pal Singh was driving the scooter on the wrong side of the road. PW-6 who was standing near the side of occurrence stated that he runs a STD Booth there and categorically stated that PW-5 Virender Singh had also come there to make telephone call. Rather PW6 denied the existence of pits on the road. If the statements of PWs 5 and 6 are read in conjunction, they have been candid in making statement that scooter was on its own side and accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Suggestion put to both the witnesses to the effect that scooter was being driven on the wrong side was denied by them. 15. PW-13 Ramesh H.C. had gone to the site of accident after receiving a telephonic intimation. After getting the statement of the complainant PW-4 Tej Pal Singh recorded statement under Section 154 Cr.PC Ext.PW-4/A at hospital and thereafter registered FIR Ext.PW1/A. He had obtained the photographs of the site of accident Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/H, spot map PW13/A was also got prepared by him. Perusal of the photographs certainly makes no head and tail because only pictures of damaged scooter have been taken but it has come on record that car involved in the accident had left the place of occurrence at that time because injured persons were taken to the hospital in that car only. At that time, no photographs showing exact location of the car were clicked. However, site plan Ext.PW13/A leaves no doubt in the mind that scooter was lying on the left side of the road when one comes from Badripur to Paonta Sahib. Width of the road is also shown to be 21.Ft. and accordingly perusal of the site plan suggests that site of accident is just three feet from the left bank of the road, meaning thereby, scooter at that relevant time was on the left side. Even careful reading of the prosecution witnesses and their examination nowhere suggests that no suggestion with regard to genuineness and correctness of the site plan was put to them with a view to extract otherwise. Even careful reading of the prosecution witnesses and their examination nowhere suggests that no suggestion with regard to genuineness and correctness of the site plan was put to them with a view to extract otherwise. There is another aspect in the present case that HC Ramesh PW-13 had come on the spot immediately after receiving information of the accident, who after recording the statement of Tejpal Singh promptly reduced into writing the FIR around 10:35 pm, whereas as per prosecution story as well as narration given by eye witnesses, accident had actually taken place around 10:00PM, meaning thereby, within half an hour of accident, Statement Ext.4/A was recorded and necessary action was taken pursuant thereof. Aforesaid timely action clearly rules out any manipulation by the prosecution in presenting its version. Rather, circumstances and narration of facts given by prosecution witnesses strengthen the case of the prosecution. 16. To the contrary, accused did not lead any evidence to prove that scooter in question was being driven negligently and rashly and actually it had come on the wrong side to avoid the pits. PWs-5 and 6 categorically stated that there were no pits on the side. 17. Mr. Rajesh Verma, counsel for the petitioner stated that courts below have fell in grave error while relying heavily upon the statements of PWs-5 and 6 who were the eye witnesses of the case, especially, in view of the fact when it has come on record that they were known to the complainant Tej Pal Singh as well as pillion rider but this Court sees no force in the contentions of Mr. Verma. 18. Admittedly, careful reading of the statements given by PWs-5 and 6 suggests that complainant as well as Kuldeep Singh Kohli were known to them as they were residing in the same street but this cannot be the reason to discard the testimony of these two witnesses, who were actually eye witnesses to the accident. Merely on the fact that they were known to the complainant cannot be the ground to discard their testimonies, which otherwise appear to be totally trustworthy when same is analyzed in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. To the contrary, there is nothing in the cross-examination of these material witnesses PWs-5 and 6 where no suggestion was put to them that they had some motive to depose falsely against the accused. To the contrary, there is nothing in the cross-examination of these material witnesses PWs-5 and 6 where no suggestion was put to them that they had some motive to depose falsely against the accused. No suggestion worth the name was put to these witnesses that they had any animosity or enmity against the accused which could compel them to depose against him. Rather, facts available on record clearly establish that PWs-5 and 6 had actually seen the accident happening before their eyes. They have been very consistent and candid in making their statements as well as re-ascertaining the same in their cross-examination. Hence, this Court has no reason to dis-believe the version put forth by them which otherwise appear to be trust-worthy, reliable and confidence inspiring. Admittedly, photographs does not suggest anything save an except scooter lying at the spot but admittedly at that time, car which was involved in the accident had left by taking injured to the hospital but as has been stated supra, that site plan Ext.13/A leaves no doubt that scooter was lying in left side of the road and even the photographs of the incident, where scooter has been shown lying on the road, clearly strengthen the story of the prosecution that actually tyre had run over the leg of the deceased. Undisputedly, kuldeep Singh Kohli sustained grievous injuries and later on died which is clear from the perusal of MLC Ext.PW8/A. Vide Ext.PW-10/A the post mortem report suggests that death of Kuldeep Singh Kohli caused due to leg hemorrhage shock leading to cardiac rest. 19. Collective reading of the statements of PW-4, PW5 and PW6 leaves no doubt in the mind of court that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused and he was rightly convicted by the trial Court below. 20. Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned advocate for the petitioner-accused prayed that prosecution has miserably failed to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner-accused as none of the prosecution witness has specifically stated with regard to the speed of the offending vehicle at that relevant time. He pleaded that in the absence of specific statement with regard to specific speed, petitioner-accused could not be held guilty for offence under Section 304 IPC. He pleaded that in the absence of specific statement with regard to specific speed, petitioner-accused could not be held guilty for offence under Section 304 IPC. In this regard, he has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in Gurcharan Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1990 (2) ACJ 598, the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced here-in-below:- 14. Adverting to the facts of this case, it is in evidence that the truck in question was loaded with fertilizer weighing 90 quintals. Obviously, it cannot be said that the speed of the vehicle was very fast. Secondly, it is a State Highway and not a National Highway. Therefore, the speed on this account as well cannot be considered to be high. 15. Coming to the statements of witnesses on this aspect, it has been stated that the truck was moving in high speed but it has not been said as to what that speed actually was. To say that a vehicle was moving in a high speed is neither a proper and legal evidence on high speed nor in any way indicates thereby the rashness on the part of the driver. The prosecution should have been exact on this aspect as speed of the vehicle is an essential point to be seen and proved in a case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, there are no skid marks which eliminate the evidence of high speed of the vehicle. In addition to this, it has been stated by the witnesses that the vehicle stopped at a distance of 50 feet from the place of accident. This appears to be exaggerated. However, it is not a long distance looking to the two points; viz, the first impact of the accident and the last tyres of the vehicle and the total length of the body of the truck in question. If seen from these angles, the distance stated by the witnesses cannot be considered to be very long and thus an indication of high speed. The version of the petitioner that he blew the horn near about the place of curve which frightened the child, cannot be considered to be without substance. If seen from these angles, the distance stated by the witnesses cannot be considered to be very long and thus an indication of high speed. The version of the petitioner that he blew the horn near about the place of curve which frightened the child, cannot be considered to be without substance. This can otherwise be reasonably inferred that the petitioner would have blown the horn on seeing the child on the road as it is in evidence that the child had come on the pucca portion of the road while there is no evidence as to whether the witnesses, more particularly, Ghanshyam, PW7, Chander Kanta, PW8, mother, and a few other witnesses were there at that particular time. Rather the depositions of these witnesses indicate that they were coming from some village lane which was joining the main road in question. Children of this age, usually crafty by temperament, move faster than the parents and are in advance of them while walking. This appears to have happened in the present case. Minute examination of the circumstances of this case and the evidence brought on the record, discloses that the deceased had reached the pucca portion of the road much before the arrival of his parents and the witnesses. That is why in their deposition they have said that the child had been run over by the truck. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated that horn by him and started crossing the road which could not be seen by him and the result was the accident and the death of the child. In case some pedestrians suddenly cross a road, the driver of the vehicle cannot save the pedestrian, however slow he may be driving the vehicle. In such a situation he cannot be held negligent; rather it appears that the parents of the child were negligent in not taking proper care of the child and allowed him to come alone to the road while they were somewhere behind and they could have rushed to pull back the child before the approaching vehicle came in contact with him as it is in their depositions that the truck driver was at a distance coming at a high speed and in case the child wanted to cross the road, it could do so within the time it reached at the place of the accident. How the accident has actually taken place, has not been clearly and comprehensively stated by any of the witnesses. They appear to have been prejudiced by the act of the driver. Their versions are, therefore, coloured by the ultimate act of the petitioner and the fact that the child had been finished. 21. True it is that the Hon’ble High Court while passing aforesaid judgment has observed that “prosecution should have been exact on this aspect as speed of the vehicle is an essential point to be seen and proved under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code”. Definitely, there cannot be any quarrel with regard to the aforesaid observations made by the Court but now question arises as to what can be the method/mode for measuring the exact speed of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Undisputedly, in the present case, offending vehicle after collusion stopped and automatically speedometer springs back to “Zero” and as such, no help at all can be taken from speedometer to ascertain the exact speed of the vehicle. To my mind, the eye witnesses of the accident can be the best persons to depose whether offending vehicle was in high speed or not. Apart from above, aspect of high speed can be gauzed from the side/direction of the offending vehicle being driven on the wrong side and certainly an inference of its being driven rashly and negligently on high speed can be drawn by perusing spot map, photographs and mechanical reports which may point towards the force/impact, as supporting evidence. But obviously, in the absence of some specific mode to gauze the speed, only eye witnesses to the accident can be the best persons to depose the high speed/actual speed of the vehicle. The case relied upon by the counsel representing the petitioner is not applicable in the presence of facts and circumstances of the case because admittedly, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently in high speed, where two witnesses PWs-5 and 6 have categorically stated that vehicle was being driven on wrong side rashly and negligently in high speed which further stands from the spot map. 22. Mr. 22. Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Thana Ram versus State of Haryana 1996 (2) CRI.L.J. 2020, the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced here-inbelow:- 8. From a bare perusal of the testimony of Avdesh Yadav (PW.2), it is evident that it is quite vague and indefinite as regards the investigation carried out by Sub Inspector Ram Chander on the spot of occurrence. According to him, he is an eye witness. He has nowhere stated if any site plan of the spot of the occurrence was prepared, whether any measurements of the spot of occurrence were taken, whether any other document was prepared on the spot in his presence, and whether any persons of the nearby place who might have been present at that time were questioned or examined by the Investigating Officer. According to this witness, the truck in question was coming from the front side and he was at a distance of about 20 yards behind the deceased. In these circumstances testimony of Avdesh Yadav (PW.2) could not be said to be safe to hold that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner. It appears that both the Courts were impressed with the fact that an accident had taken place in which Kishore along with cycle were crushed under the right rear wheel of the truck and as such, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. To base conviction of an accused for the offences under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is bound to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there should be nexus between such driving and death of the deceased. Therefore, there should have been some material to corroborate the testimony of Avdesh Yadav (PW.2) to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. 23. On the other hand, facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are different, where none of the witnesses had clearly and comprehensively stated the manner of the accident. 23. On the other hand, facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are different, where none of the witnesses had clearly and comprehensively stated the manner of the accident. Rather, it stood proved that deceased child got frightened on blowing of the horn and while attempting to cross the road came under the rear wheels of the truck. Hence, the judgment as referred above may not be helpful to the petitioner-accused in the present case. 24. Mr. Verma counsel appearing for the petitioner accused also invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Pal, 2015 (11) SCC 584. In the aforesaid case, decision of the Hon’ble High Court was taken in the appeal on the ground that sentence of mere fine of Rs.40,000/- is not adequate and proportionate to offence. Perusal of the facts of the aforesaid case suggests that victim was a young girl of 20 years died on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent at Gulaba near Manali. Trial Court below convicted the respondent under Sections 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further imprisonment of one month under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. However, our Hon’ble High Court set aside the aforesaid conviction with a fine of Rs. 40,000/-. This order of High Court of Himachal Pradesh was assailed by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing aforesaid judgment held that respondent-State has not called in question his conviction so only issue before them is inadequacy of the sentence in the present appeal filed by the State. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that sentence of mere fine of Rs. 40,000/- is not adequate and proportionate to offence and accused was directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the State to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 357-A. It is ample clear from the plain reading of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that only inadequacy of sentence i.e. compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- is not adequate and proportionate to offence and accused was directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the State to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 357-A. It is ample clear from the plain reading of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that only inadequacy of sentence i.e. compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, was under challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such Hon’ble the Apex Court had not returned any finding with regard to awarding of sentence of imprisonment by the courts below under Sections 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code. Hence, present judgment relied upon by the petitioner may not be of any help to the petitioner as far as conviction under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 25. Mr. Verma prayed that petitioner being first offender and young man of 41 years deserves to be given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the present case, this Court cannot ignore the fact that one person has died due to rash and negligent driving of the accused and rather, court below has been very very lenient while convicting and while imposing the sentence. 26. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.” 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgments passed by learned courts below as the same appears to be based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and the same is affirmed and upheld at this stage. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgments passed by learned courts below as the same appears to be based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and the same is affirmed and upheld at this stage. However, keeping in view the fact that matter remained pending in the courts for more than 10 years and during this period, accused must have suffered mental agony and has a family to support, it would be appropriate and just in case, sentence of imprisonment of six months, punishable under Section 304 (A), is reduced to three months. Hence the judgments passed by the courts below is modified to that extent only and revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Order dated 29.5.2009, 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 trial court subject to the modification made hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.