Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.520 OF 2015
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5825 of 2014]
State of Punjab ... Appellant
Versus
Saurabh Bakshi ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles,
JUDGMENT
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
Page 1
2
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
JUDGMENT
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
Page 2
3
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. We are constrained to commence
with this prologue because we are required to deal with the
concept of adequacy of quantum of sentence imposed by
the High Court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) after maintaining the conviction of the respondent of
the said offence as the prosecution has proven the charge
that the respondent has caused death of two persons by
JUDGMENT
rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle.
2. The facts which are necessitous to be stated are that
on 14.6.2007 Jagdish Ram and his nephew, Shavinder
Kumar @ Tinku, sister’s son, had proceeded from Sangrur to
Patiala in their Maruti car bearing registration PB-11-M-
8050. The said vehicle was also followed by Ramesh Chand
in another Maruti car bearing registration no. PB-09-C-6292.
Page 3
4
Be it noted that all of them had gone to house of one Des
Raj at Sangrur in connection with matrimonial alliance of
Shavinder Kumar alias Tinku. The vehicle that was driven
by Tinku was ahead of Ramesh’s at a distance of 25/30
kadams. After they reached some distance ahead of the
bus stand village Mehmadpur about 2.00 p.m. an Indica car
bearing registration no. HR-02-6800 came from the opposite
side at a very high speed and the driver of the said car hit
straightaway the car of Jagdish and dragged it to a
considerable distance as a result of which it fell in the
ditches. Ramesh Chand, who was following in his car,
witnessed that his brother-in-law and nephew had sustained
number of injuries and their condition was critical. A police
ambulance came to the spot and the injured persons were
JUDGMENT
taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where Jagdish and
Shavinder Kumar succumbed to injuries. In view of the said
incident as FIR was lodged by Ramesh Chand, brother-in-
law of Jagdish and accordingly a crime under Section
279/304A was registered against the respondent for rash
and negligent driving. The learned trial Magistrate, Patiala
framed charges for the offences punishable under Section
Page 4
5
279/304A IPC to which the respondent pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove
its case examined six witnesses. The learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide judgment and order dated
23.4.2012 convicted the respondent for the offences
punishable under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and
pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause. On an appeal
being preferred, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala
dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated
6.9.2013.
3. As the factual matrix would unveil the respondent
being grieved by the aforesaid conviction and the sentence
preferred Criminal Revision No. 2955 of 2013 and the High
JUDGMENT
Court while disposing off the Criminal Revision addressed to
the quantum of sentence and in that context observed
that:-
“...the legal heirs of Jagdish Ram have been
awarded a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- as
compensation by the MACT and
Rs.12,07,206/- to the legal heirs of Swinder
Kumar @ Tinku by the MACT. The FAO Nos.
5329 and 5330 are pending in this Court. In
compliance of order dated 19.9.2013, the
Page 5
6
petitioner has deposited Rs.85,000/- before
the trial court as compensation to be paid to
the LRs of deceased Jagdish Ram and Swinder
Kumar @ Tinku. The compensation shall be
divided as Rs.50,000/- to the LRs of Swinder
Kumar @ Tinku and Rs.35,000/- to the LRs of
Jagdish Ram. The receipt is taken on record.
As per custody certificate petitioner Saurabh
Bakshi has undergone 24 days as on
30.9.2013 out of one year.”
Being of this view the High Court upheld the conviction and
reduced the sentence, as has been stated before, to the
period already undergone. Hence, the State is in appeal.
4. At this juncture, it is essential to state that the
respondent who had initially wanted to argue the matter in-
person had agreed to be assisted by a counsel and
accordingly this court had appointed Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
learned senior counsel to assist the court in the matter.
5. We have heard Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Additional
JUDGMENT
Advocate General and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior
counsel for the respondent.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Madhukar that when the
prosecution had been able to establish the charges leveled
against the respondent and both the trial court and the
appellant court had maintained the sentence there was no
Page 6
7
justification on the part of the High Court to reduce the
sentence to the period already undergone solely on the
basis that the respondent had paid some compensation. It
is his further submission that keeping in view the gravity of
the offence that two deaths had occurred the High Court
should have kept itself alive to the nature of the crime and
should have been well advised not to interfere with the
quantum of sentence. He has commended us to the
decisions in State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh and
1
Others and Guru Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa v.
2
State of Karnataka .
7. Ms. Meenakshi, learned senior counsel, per contra, has
contended that the respondent was quite young at the time
the accident took place and it may be an act of negligence,
JUDGMENT
but the contributory facet by the Maruti car driver cannot be
ruled out. That apart, there are mitigating circumstances
for reduction of the sentence and in the obtaining factual
matrix the High Court has appositely adopted corrective
machinery which also reflects the concept of
proportionality. The learned senior counsel would also
1
(2012) 2 SCC 182
2
(2012) 8 SCC 734
Page 7
8
submit that when the High Court has exercised the
discretion which is permissible under Section 304A this
court should be slow to interfere. It is urged by her that
when the compensation had been paid, the High Court has
kept in view the aspect of rehabilitation of the victim and
when that purpose have been sub-served the reduction of
sentence should not be interfered with. The learned senior
counsel has drawn inspiration from Gopal Singh v. State
3
of Uttarakhand and a recent judgment in Criminal Appeal
4
No. 290 of 2015 titled State of M.P. v. Mehtaab .
8. At the outset, it is essential to note that the
respondent stood convicted by the trial court as well by the
appellate court. The findings recorded by the said two
courts are neither perverse nor did they call for interference
JUDGMENT
in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The High Court as
we notice has been persuaded by the factum of payment of
compensation by the respondent herein, amounting to
Rs.85,000/- to the LRs of deceased Jagdish Ram and his
nephew and the said compensation had been directed to be
paid by virtue of the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the
3
(2013) 7 SCC 545
4
2015 (2) SCALE 386
Page 8
9
High Court. It is submitted by Ms. Arora that apart from the
young age of the respondent at the time of occurrence the
aforesaid aspect would constitute the mitigating factor. In
Mehtaab’s case a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the
case under Section 304A IPC wherein the respondent was
convicted under Section 304A IPC and 337 IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year and three months rigorous
imprisonment respectively. The High Court had reduced the
sentence to 10 days. It is apt to note here that in that case
the deceased had received injuries due to shock of electric
current. The court took note of the submission of the
learned counsel for the State and proceeded to opine as
follows:-
“7. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that
the accused Respondent had installed a
transformer in his field and left the electric wires
naked which was a negligent act. The deceased
Sushila Bai died on account of the said naked wire
which had high voltage and was not visible in the
dark. The offence having been fully proved by the
evidence on record, the High Court was not
justified in reducing the sentence to 10 days which
was not just and fair. Even if liberal view on
sentence of imprisonment was to be taken, the
High Court ought to have enhanced the sentence
of fine and awarded a reasonable compensation as
a condition for reduction of sentence.
JUDGMENT
Page 9
1
8. We find force in the submission. It is the
duty of the Court to award just sentence to a
convict against whom charge is proved. While
every mitigating or aggravating circumstance
may be given due weight, mechanical
reduction of sentence to the period already
undergone cannot be appreciated. Sentence
has to be fair not only to the accused but also
to the victim and the society. It is also the
duty of the court to duly consider the aspect
of rehabilitating the victim. Unfortunately,
these factors are missing in the impugned
order. No cogent reason has been assigned
for imposing only 10 days sentence when an
innocent life has been lost.”
After so stating the court referred to the decision in Suresh
5
v. State of Haryana and enhanced the compensation
taking note of the financial capacity of the accused
respondent therein, and directed as follows:-
“10. As already observed, the Respondent
having been found guilty of causing death by
his negligence, the High Court was not
justified in reducing the sentence of
imprisonment to 10 days without awarding
any compensation to the heirs of the
deceased. We are of the view that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the order of
the High Court can be upheld only with the
modification that the accused will pay
compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the heirs of the
deceased within six months. In default, he will
undergo RI for six months. The compensation
of Rs. 2 lakhs is being fixed having regard to
the limited financial resources of the accused
but the said compensation may not be
JUDGMENT
5
Crl Appeal No. 420 of 2012, decided on 28.11.2014
Page 10
1
adequate for the heirs of the deceased. In
such situation, in addition to the
compensation to be paid by the accused, the
State can be required to pay compensation
Under Section 357-A. As per judgment of this
Court in Suresh (supra), the scheme adopted
by the State of Kerala is applicable to all the
States and the said scheme provides for
compensation upto Rs. 5 lakhs in the case of
death. In the present case, it will be
appropriate, in the interests of justice, to
award interim compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs
Under Section 357-A payable out of the funds
available/to be made available by the State of
Madhya Pradesh with the District Legal
Services, Authority, Guna. In case, the
accused does not pay the compensation
awarded as above, the State of Madhya
Pradesh will pay the entire amount of
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs within three
months after expiry of the time granted to the
accused.”
9. In our considered view the decision in the said case
has to be confined to the facts of that case. It cannot be
said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused offers
JUDGMENT
acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim,
regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304A,
there can be reduction of sentence.
10. 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
Page 11
1
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
6
Singh v. State of Haryana and reproduced two
paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for
reproduction:-
“ 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.
JUDGMENT
*
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,
6
(2000) 5 SCC 82
Page 12
1
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.”
7
11. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka the
appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
JUDGMENT
six months for the offences punishable under Section 304A
IPC. The two-Judge Bench referred to Dalbir Singh (supra)
and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence. Be
it stated, in the said case a passage from Ratan Singh v.
8
State of Punjab was quoted:-
7
(2008) 5 SCC 730
8
(1979) 4 SCC719
Page 13
1
“ Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy
of correction. This driver, if he has to become
a good driver, must have a better training in
traffic laws and moral responsibility, with
special reference to the potential injury to
human life and limb. Punishment in this area
must, therefore, be accompanied by these
components. The State, we hope, will attach a
course for better driving together with a
livelier sense of responsibility, when the
punishment is for driving offences. Maybe, the
State may consider, in case of men with poor
families, occasional parole and reformatory
courses on appropriate application, without
the rigour of the old rules which are subject to
Government discretion .”
12. In Guru Basavaraj (supra) the appellant was found
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338,
279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to suffer simple
imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default to suffer simple imprisonment of 45 days.
The two-Judge Bench after placing reliance on State of
JUDGMENT
9
Karnataka v. Krishna , Sevaka Perumal v. State of
10
T.N. , Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of
11
Gujarat , State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa
12
Basanagouda Aregoudar and State of M.P. v.
9
(1987) 1 SCC 538
10
(1991) 3 SCC 471
11
(19940 4 SCC 353
12
(2002) 3 SCC 738
Page 14
1
13
Saleem opined that there is a constant concern of the
court on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of
commission of offences regard being had to the nature of
the offence and demand of the conscience of the society.
There has been emphasis on the concern to impose
adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section
304A IPC. The Court has observed that it is worthy to note
that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have
been taken into consideration but the said aspect is
dependent on the facts of each case. As the trend of
authorities would show, the proficiency in professional
driving is emphasised upon and deviation therefrom that
results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident
has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number
JUDGMENT
of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a
stir in the society; sense of fear prevails all around. The
negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective.
When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality
of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity
in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected
13
(2005) 5 SCC 554
Page 15
1
persons, both direct and vicarious, can have nightmarish
effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt
more when accidents take place quite often because of rash
driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter,
adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for
others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different
sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section
357(3) CrPC with a direction that the same should be paid
to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason
of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a
different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a
substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence.
Thereafter, the Court proceeded to observe:-
JUDGMENT
“32. We may note with profit that an
appropriate punishment works as an eye-
opener for the persons who are not careful
while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit
a careless attitude possibly harbouring the
notion that they would be shown indulgence
or lives of others are like “flies to the wanton
boys”. They totally forget that the lives of
many are in their hands, and the sublimity of
safety of a human being is given an indecent
burial by their rash and negligent act.
Page 16
1
33. There can hardly be any cavil that there
has to be a proportion between the crime and
the punishment. It is the duty of the court to
see that appropriate sentence is imposed
regard being had to the commission of the
crime and its impact on the social order. The
cry of the collective for justice
which includes
adequate punishment cannot be lightly
ignored.”
Being of this view, the Court declined to interfere.
14
13. In Siriya v. State of M.P. it has been held as follows:-
“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. By deft modulation
sentencing process be stern where it should
be, and tempered with mercy where it
warrants to be.”
JUDGMENT
14. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of
15
Maharashtra while emphasizing on the inherent danger
the Court observed thus:-
“ 39. Like Section 304-A, Sections 279, 336,
337 and 338 IPC are attracted for only the
14
(2008) 8 SCC 72
15
(2012) 2 SCC 648
Page 17
1
negligent or rash act. The scheme of Sections
279, 304-A, 336, 337 and 338 leaves no
manner of doubt that these offences are
punished because of the inherent danger of
the acts specified therein irrespective of
knowledge or intention to produce the result
and irrespective of the result. These sections
make punishable the acts themselves which
are likely to cause death or injury to human
life.”
15. While dealing with the policy of sentencing in Gopal
Singh (supra) the two-Judge Bench quoted a paragraph
16
from Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat which is
as follows:-
“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.’
JUDGMENT
16
(2006) 2 SCC 359
Page 18
1
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.”
In the said case it has been laid as follows:-
“18. Just punishment is the collective cry of
the society. While the collective cry has to be
kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously
the principle of proportionality between the
crime and punishment cannot be totally
brushed aside. The principle of just
punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in
respect of a criminal offence. A punishment
should not be disproportionately excessive.
The concept of proportionality allows a
significant discretion to the Judge but the
same has to be guided by certain principles.
In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the
antecedents of the
JUDGMENT
accused, the factum of
age, the potentiality of the convict to become
a criminal in future, capability of his
reformation and to lead an acceptable life in
the prevalent milieu, the effect — propensity
to become a social threat or nuisance, and
sometimes lapse of time in the commission of
the crime and his conduct in the interregnum
bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the
relationship between the parties and
attractability of the doctrine of bringing the
Page 19
2
convict to the value-based social mainstream
may be the guiding factors. Needless to
emphasise, these are certain illustrative
aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We
may hasten to add that there can neither be a
straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in
mathematical exactitude. It would be
dependent on the facts of the case and
rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the
personal perception of a Judge nor self-
adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical
apprehensions should be allowed to have any
play. For every offence, a drastic measure
cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender
cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency
solely on the ground of discretion vested in a
court. The real requisite is to weigh the
circumstances in which the crime has been
committed and other concomitant factors
which we have indicated hereinbefore and
also have been stated in a number of
pronouncements by this Court. On such
touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed.
The discretion should not be in the realm of
fancy. It should be embedded in the
conceptual essence of just punishment.”
17
16. In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) though
JUDGMENT
in a different context while dealing with the issue of
sentencing it has been stated that primarily it is to be borne
in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal.
Sentence is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of
the offence and the manner in which the offence has been
committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of
17
(2013) 7 SCC 77
Page 20
2
sentence is based on the principle that the accused must
realise that the crime committed by him has not only
created a dent in his life but also a concavity in the social
fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that
the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the
collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes. It
serves as a deterrent. True it is, on certain occasions,
opportunities may be granted to the convict for reforming
himself but it is equally true that
the principle of
proportionality between an offence committed and the
penalty imposed are to be kept in view. While carrying out
this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the part of the
court to see the impact of the offence on the society as a
whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective as
JUDGMENT
well as its repercussions on the victim.
17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent
driving has been established. This court has been
constantly noticing the increase in number of road
accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have
been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a
drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving
Page 21
2
with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no
traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre
stage.
The protagonists, as we perceive, 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. Neither
the law nor the court that implements the law should ever
get oblivious 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. Such developing of
notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly society.
Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all
circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as
JUDGMENT
worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously
temperamental. 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
Page 22
2
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.
18. Before parting with the case we are compelled to
observe that India has a disreputable record of road
accidents. There is a non-challant attitude among the
JUDGMENT
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
Page 23
2
obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the
lawmakers should scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the
sentencing policy in Section 304A, IPC. We say so with
immense anguish.
19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above and the respondent be taken into custody
forthwith to suffer the remaining period of sentence.
........................................J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
........................................J.
[PRAFULLA C. PANT]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 30, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Page 24