Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2242 (RAJ)

Nitin Baghel v. State of Rajasthan

2018-12-04

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment & order dated 06.04.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bharatpur, whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 279, 337 & 304-A of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, on non payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, on non payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for offence under Section 337 I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 9,000/-, on non payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. 2. After arguing at some length, counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was a young boy who was not a professional driver, hence, his case should have been considered for release on probation under Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision petition on merits, his contention is that petitioner be given benefit of probation or the sentence be reduced. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Gulzar v. State of M.P.” 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 378, “Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor” Criminal Revision Petition No. 92/2003, decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 18.07.2017, “State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Chandigarh v. Sanjiv Bhalla,” (2015) 13 Supreme Court Cases 444, “Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi” (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185 & “Abdul Jabbar v. State of Rajasthan,” Criminal Revision Petition No. 80/2001, decided by Rajasthan High Court on 31.01.2013. 4. Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the present revision petition. Counsel for the complainant has contends that due to rash and negligent driving, a boy has lost his life. The deceased has a widow and two children. 5. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on “Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana,” AIR SC 472 Appeal (Crl.) 426 of 2000, decided on 04.05.2000, “State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi,” Criminal Appeal No. 520/2015 (2015) 5 SCC 182 , decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 30.03.2015, “State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh” (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 182; 2012 (3) RLW 2606 (SC). 6. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Since, petitioner is not challenging the judgments & orders on merit, the only question which arises for consideration before this Court is with regard to sentencing. Both the Courts below have sentenced the petitioner for maximum term of two years for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. 8. The Apex Court in “Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana” (supra) has held that 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 I.P.C., 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 pure consideration should be deterrence. 9. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the complainant have placed reliance on “State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh” (supra), wherein the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone that is 15 days. Apex Court held that there was no sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence of two years to the period already undergone as it was a case where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck, Apex Court impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine upto Rs. 500/-. 10. In “State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi” (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the fact of the raising trend in accidental death observed that the lawmakers should scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A I.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that persons have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbour the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. The Courts should in view of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse then death. Young age can not be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. The Courts should in view of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse then death. Young age can not be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. 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 and High Court in that case had reduced the sentence to 24 days. The Apex Court reduced the sentence to six months. 11. Coming back to the facts of this case, petitioner was driving a car which was coming from Mathura towards Bharatpur, it crossed the other side of the road and the deceased who was riding a motor-cycle hit the vehicle on the left side. Due to accident the motor-cycle rider died on the spot and the car fell in the pit. 12. From the site plan Ex.P-3, it is evident that width of the road was 26 feet, thereafter, there was a footpath which was curved and width of the road on which two wheeler are running, was of 3 feet, thereafter, there was a strip of land which was 4 feet wide. The vehicle swayed on the wrong direction and crossed the footpath as well as 4 feet path which verses have come in from the side of the accused. In the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he was driving car and he has mentioned that his vehicle's tyre got burst as a result of which he lost his control. Petitioner's father has put the blame on friend of the petitioner. Yet another theory is developed that due to truck coming on the way to save the vehicle the car was swayed towards right direction and it crossed the road where the motorcycle driver collided with the car. 13. It is true that petitioner is not a professional driver and a victim's family can not be compensated by any means for the loss of life, moreover, when the victim's family consists of a widow and two children. The Apex Court in a case where death occurred due to rash and negligent driving has reduced the sentence from two years to six months. In “State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi” (supra), the sentence was reduced from one year to six months. 14. The Apex Court in a case where death occurred due to rash and negligent driving has reduced the sentence from two years to six months. In “State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi” (supra), the sentence was reduced from one year to six months. 14. In the present case in hand, the petitioner did not flee from the place of occurrence, his vehicle swayed to the right direction and the deceased hit the vehicle on the left side. 15. Taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, keeping the entire circumstance of the case in consideration, this Court deems it proper to reduce the sentence from two years to six months. However, the fine needs to be increased and the same is increased to Rs. 50,000/-, the sentence in lieu of non payment of fine, would be three months. The sentence and fine passed for offence under Section 279 I.P.C. remains unaltered. Both the sentences would run concurrently. The present revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. The amount of fine be paid to the victim's family.