JUDGMENT Vinod S. Bhardwaj. J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') in case bearing FIR No. 14 dated 16.01.2013 registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of the IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amrtisar and has been sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default of Payment of fine 279 of Indian Penal Code Simple imprisonment for a period of six months Rs.500/- Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days 304-A of Indian Penal Code Simple imprisonment for a period of one year Rs.2,000/- Simple imprisonment for a period of one month 427 of the Indian Penal Code Simple Imprisonment of 06 months Rs. 500/- Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days 2. A further challenge is raised to the judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar was partly allowed and conviction under Section 427 of the IPC was set aside. However, the judgment of conviction for offences punishable under Section 279 & 304-A of the IPC was upheld. 3. The case was listed for hearing on 31.03.2022, where counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that she has instructions not to raise a challenge to the judgment of conviction and that she wishes to confine the prayer only to the extent of sentence. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued to respondent-State. Today, again the said prayer had been reiterated by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. 4. Brief facts as necessary for adjudication for the instant petition are extracted as under:- 4.1 That on 16.01.2013, ASI Vijay Kumar alongwith the police party was present at Rattan Singh Chowk, for the purpose of patrolling. There complainant Prem Singh came and got recorded his statement to the effect that on 16.01.2013 at around 9:00 AM he went to meet his uncle Bihari Lal and after meeting him and having refreshments he and his uncle had to leave for Punjab National Bank, Amritsar for some work. There complainant Prem Singh came and got recorded his statement to the effect that on 16.01.2013 at around 9:00 AM he went to meet his uncle Bihari Lal and after meeting him and having refreshments he and his uncle had to leave for Punjab National Bank, Amritsar for some work. That his uncle was on his Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing registration No. PB02-C-7862 and complainant was following his uncle on his own scooter. When they reached petrol pump in front of street no. 7, Karampura around 12.15 PM then one Tata Canter of oxygen gas bearing registration No.PB02-AU-9567 came from Fategarh Churian Road, Bye Pass on a very high speed without blowing horn. On seeing the truck he moved aside and driver of the canter hit the scooter of his uncle with his canter. Due to the collusion between the canter and the scooter his uncle fell and the left tyre of the canter ran over the head of his uncle. That his uncle died on the spot and driver of the canter ran away from the spot with his canter. That complainant called his brother- in-law on the spot and leaving him on the spot he was on his way to make the complaint and meet the police party. He prayed for necessary action to be taken against the accused. 4.2 On the basis of the application moved by the complainant, ruqa was prepared, FIR was registered against the accused, investigation was conducted, statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') were recorded, rough site plan was prepared and accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court against the accused. 4.3 On presentation of challan, copies of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 279, 304-A of IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4.4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined Prem Singh as PW1, Rakesh Kumar as PW2, HC Ashok Kumar as PW3, Vijay Kumar as PW4, HC Prem Singh as PW5, HC Harjindr Singh as PW6, HC Lakhbir Singh as PW7, Ravi Kumar as PW8, Dr. 4.4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined Prem Singh as PW1, Rakesh Kumar as PW2, HC Ashok Kumar as PW3, Vijay Kumar as PW4, HC Prem Singh as PW5, HC Harjindr Singh as PW6, HC Lakhbir Singh as PW7, Ravi Kumar as PW8, Dr. Jatinderpal Singh as PW9, ASI Roop Lal as PW10, HC Nirmal Singh as PW11 and Ashok Kumar as PW12 who proved on record documents i.e. statement of complainant Prem Singh as EX-P1, police proceedings as EX-PW4/A, ruqa as EXPW3/A, FIR as EX-PW3/B, memo vide which blood stained soul taken into possession as EX-PW3/C, memo vide which RC of scooter taken into possession as EX-PW3/D, personal search memo of accused Vipan Singh as EX-PW3/E, memo vide which D and photos taken into possession as EX-PW3/F, recovery memo of driving license as EXPW3/F (again), memo vide which attendance register taken into possession as EX-PW3/G, memo vide which voucher of salary taken into possession as EX-PW4/F, site plan as EX-PW4/B, memo vide which dead body taken into possession as EX-PW4/F, application to Head Forensic Science, Medical College, Amritsar as EX-PW4/D, application to DTO, Amritsar as EX-PW4/G, application to DTO, Amritsar regarding verification of the RC of Tata 407 as EX-PW4/H, application to DTO, Amritsar for verification of RC no. PB02-C-7862 as EX-PW4/J, test report of scooter Bajaj Chetak as EX-PW7/A, test report of Tata Canter 407 as EX-PW7/B, Statement of Ravi Kumar as EX- PW8/A, postmortem report of Bihari Lal as EX-PW9/A, memo vide Canter Tata 407 and gas cylinder taken into possession as EX-PW2/A, recovery memo of RC of PB02-AU-9567 as EX-PW2/B, arrest- cumintimation memo of accused Vipan Singh as EX-PW2/C and closed the prosecution evidence. 4.5. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which accused pleaded his false implication. Without examining any witness petitioner-accused closed his defence evidence. 5. Upon consideration of evidence adduced by the respective parties and the arguments advanced, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar convicted the petitioner for the commission of the offences referred to above and sentenced the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal has been filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide judgment dated 28.09.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 427 of the IPC. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal has been filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide judgment dated 28.09.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 427 of the IPC. However, the judgment of conviction for commission of offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC were upheld. 6. While advancing the arguments for seeking reduction of the sentence so imposed upon the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and has no previous conviction against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 30 years of age as per the affidavit and as the incident in question took place in the year 2013, he was around 21 years of age at the time. Reference is made to the Date of Birth as mentioned in the Aadhar Card which shows the Date of Birth as 22.11.1991 to support the said argument. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already faced incarceration of a criminal trial for a period of nearly 09 years and the petitioner has minor children to take care of. She further submits that the petitioner has small children and is the only bread winner in the family and his continued incarceration has created huge financial hardship to the family. She also points out that petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 07 months and 25 days and the total sentence including remission is 08 months and 23 days. 7. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the prosecution had duly established the case against the petitioner and that on account of his rash and negligent driving a person had lost his life. He further contends that the incident of rash and negligent driving are on the rise and that the irresponsible driving on the part of the petitioner has only contributed to making the roads unsafe for commuters. He contends that no such undue sympathy ought to be shown in favour of the violators. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the petitioner does not have any other criminal antecendents. He contends that no such undue sympathy ought to be shown in favour of the violators. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the petitioner does not have any other criminal antecendents. It is also not controverted that even though the petitioner was admitted to bail after the commission of the offence, however, there has been no other case that has been registered against him for any rash and negligent driving after the registration of the present case till the date of his conviction and as far as today. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the submissions made by them. The position in fact is not disputed. The parameters of sentencing and the philosophy behind the same mandate that the Court is required to balance the reformative and retributive aspect of the crime and the deterrent impact of sentencing ought to be reflected. The said aspect gains special significance when the conviction reflects a pre-determined crime. However, in the case where the offence shows rashness or negligence, the element of mens rea does not exist. It would thus ordinarily not be a circumstance where an accused has consciously committed an act of desiring the consequences to follow. It is also evident that the petitioner has faced the rigor of criminal prosecution for a period of more than 09 years since the registration of the FIR and as against the substantive sentence of 01 year, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and 25 days and the total sentence including remission is 08 years and 23 days. 9. The Supreme Court has in the matter of 'State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi' passed in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015 dated 30.03.2015 had reduced the sentence of 02 years for commission of offence under Section 304 (A) of the IPC to a period of 06 months and this Court has also in the matter of 'Jaswant Singh versus State of Punjab' passed in CRR No. 1239 of 2012 dated 29.08.2019 had reduced the sentence to already undergone where the petitioner had undergone an actual custody of 04 months and 27 days. Parameters and Principles of Sentencing: 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to govern the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Parameters and Principles of Sentencing: 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to govern the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Ors (2008) 7 SCC 550 , the relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 'Whether the court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. 5. While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind. 7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice delivery system. The Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from Sub-section (2) of Section 235, Sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them. 8. Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also relevant. 9. What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The Superior Courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Age of the accused is also relevant. 9. What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The Superior Courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in regard to imposition of fine. 10. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of W.B. [ (1994) 2 SCC 220 ], this Court held: "15...Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime..." 11. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of A.P. [ (1996) 6 SCC 241 ], following Dhananjoy Chatterjee (supra), states the principles of deterrence and retribution but the same cannot be categorized as right or wrong. So much depends upon the belief of the judges. 12. In a recent decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [ (2006) 2 SCC 359 ], this Court opined: '7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [ (1991) 3 SCC 471 ], this Court furthermore held that it was the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. 18. Don M. Gottfredson in his essay on "Sentencing Guidelines" in "Sentencing: Hyman Gross and Andrew von Hirsch" opines: "It is a common claim in the literature of criminal justice- and indeed in the popular press- that there is considerable "disparity" in sentencing.. The word "disparity" has become a prerogative and the concept of "sentencing disparity" now carries with it the connotation of biased or insidious practices on the part of the judges. This is unfortunate in that much otherwise valid criticism has failed to separate justified variation from the unjustified variation referred to as disparity. The phrase "unwarranted disparity" may be preferred; not all sentencing variation should be considered unwarranted or disparate. Much of it properly reflects varying degrees of seriousness in the offense and/or varying characteristics of the offender. Dispositional variation that is based upon permissible, rationally relevant and understandably distinctive characteristics of the offender and of the offense may be wholly justified, beneficial and proper, so long as the variable qualities are carefully monitored or consistency and desirability over time. Moreover, since no two offenses or offenders are identical, the labeling of variation as disparity necessarily involves a value judgment- that is, disparity to one person may be simply justified variation to another. Moreover, since no two offenses or offenders are identical, the labeling of variation as disparity necessarily involves a value judgment- that is, disparity to one person may be simply justified variation to another. It is only when such variation takes the form of differing sentences for similar offenders committing similar offenses that it can be considered disparate." [Emphasis supplied] The learned author further opines: "In many jurisdictions, judicial discretion is nearly unlimited as to whether or not to incarcerate an individual; and bound only by statutory maxima, leaving a broad range of discretion, as to the length of sentence." 19. Kevin R. Reitz in Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, Second edition "Sentencing guidelines" states: "All guideline jurisdictions have found it necessary to create rules that identify the factual issues at sentencing that must be resolved under the guidelines, those that are potentially relevant to a sentencing decision, and those viewed as forbidden considerations that may not be taken into account by sentencing courts. One heated controversy, addressed differently across jurisdictions, is whether the guideline sentence should be based exclusively on crimes for which offenders have been convicted ("conviction offenses"), or whether a guideline sentence should also reflect additional alleged criminal conduct for which formal convictions have not been obtained ("nonconviction offenses"). Another difficult issue of fact-finding at sentence for guideline designers has been the degree to which trial judges should be permitted to consider the personal characteristics of offenders as mitigating factors when imposing sentence. For example: Is the defendant a single parent with young children at home? Is the defendant a drug addict but a good candidate for drug treatment? Has the defendant struggled to overcome conditions of economic, social or educational deprivation prior to the offense? Was the defendant's criminal behavior explicable in part by youth, inexperience, or an unformed ability to resist peer pressure? Most guideline states, once again including all jurisdictions with voluntary guidelines, allow trial courts latitude to sentence outside of the guideline ranges based on the judge's assessment of such offender characteristics. Some states, fearing that race or class disparities might be exacerbated by unguided consideration of such factors, have placed limits on the list of eligible concerns. (However, such factors may indirectly affect the sentence, since judges are permitted to base departures on the offenders particular "amenability" to probation (Frase, 1997).)" 20. Some states, fearing that race or class disparities might be exacerbated by unguided consideration of such factors, have placed limits on the list of eligible concerns. (However, such factors may indirectly affect the sentence, since judges are permitted to base departures on the offenders particular "amenability" to probation (Frase, 1997).)" 20. Andrew von Hirsch and Nils Jareborg have divided the process of determining sentence into stages of determining proportionality while determining a sentence, namely: 1. What interest are violated or threatened by the standard case of the crime- physical integrity, material support and amenity, freedom from humiliation, privacy and autonomy. 2. Effect of violating those interests on the living standards of a typical victim- minimum well-being, adequate well-being, significant enhancement 3. Culpability of the offender 4. Remoteness of the actual harm as seen by a reasonable man.' 11. The said issue was also examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Soman Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 , the relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- '15. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery, but in our country, it is the weakest part of the administration of criminal justice. There are no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court in meting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. In State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550 , this Court acknowledged as much and observed as under - '2. In our judicial system, we have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing. The superior courts except making observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an offender, have not issued any guidelines. Other developed countries have done so. At some quarters, serious concerns have been expressed in this behalf. Some committees as for example Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee have advocated introduction of sentencing guidelines.' 16. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court carefully, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation etc. Some committees as for example Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee have advocated introduction of sentencing guidelines.' 16. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court carefully, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation etc. (See: Ramashraya Chakravarti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 1 SCC 281 , Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B. (1994) 2 SCC 220 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13 , State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2004) 1 SCC 475 , Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh (2004) 2 SCC 590 , Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2006) 2 SCC 359 , Siddarama and others v. State of Karnataka (2006) 10 SCC 673 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babulal (2008) 1 SCC 234 , Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 ) 14. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness. The question is whether the consequences of the offence can be taken as the measure for determining its harmfulness? In addition, quite apart from the seriousness of the offence, can the consequences of an offence be a legitimate aggravating (as opposed to mitigating) factor while awarding a sentence. Thus, to understand the relevance of consequences of criminal conduct from a Sentencing standpoint, one must examine: (1) whether such consequences enhanced the harmfulness of the offence; and (2) whether they are an aggravating factor that need to be taken into account by the courts while deciding on the sentence. 26. Punishment should acknowledge the sanctity of human life. We fully agree. 27. From the above, one may conclude that: 27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales - most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor. 12. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based upon making an accused realize the consequences of the crime committed by him and the creation of the dent in the life of the victims and also the social fabric. The same by itself does not oblige the Court to extend opportunity to a convict for reforming himself. The principles of proportionality have to be balanced and the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the victim and the immediate collectives also has to be examined. 13. Taking into consideration, the circumstances as noticed above as well as the period of actual and total custody undergone coupled with the mitigating circumstances noticed above, I deem it appropriate to partly accept the petition. While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence so passed is modified. The sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide order dated 29.04.2017 is modified to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine awarded by the Courts below to sum of Rs.2500/- is increased to Rs.10,000/-