Back
2012 (1) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
State of Punjab — Appellant(s)
versus
Balwinder Singh and Ors. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 47-48 of 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7872-7873 of 2010)
Decided on : 6-1-2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 304A, 337 and 279 -Death by negligence -Appeals against judgment and order passed by High Court in Revision Petition for nature of offence and quantum of sentence whereby High Court partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by Trial Court as upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 of IPC-No dispute that trial Court on appreciation of evidence and accepting the prosecution witnesses convicted respondents for an offence under Section 304A -High Court, without taking note of seriousness of matter, namely, due to the negligence of the two drivers, five persons traveling in the bus died, merely because of protracted trial of about 17 years and both of them had served sentence for a period of 15 days, reduced same to period already undergone and enhanced fine to an amount of Rs.25,000/- each-. Merely because fine amount had been enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, was not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck- Impugned order of High Court set aside- Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed on accused persons with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each-Appeals allowed to said extent (Para 12)
Offences relating to motor accidents-Sentencing policy- It is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction- If anyone 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- Considering the increased number of road accidents, Apex Court, on several occasions, has reminded criminal courts dealing with offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Para 10)
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeals have been filed against judgment and order passed by High Court in Revision Petition for nature of offence and quantum of sentence whereby High Court partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by Trial Court as upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 of IPC.
Findings of the Court :
A. No dispute that trial Court on appreciation of evidence and accepting the prosecution witnesses had convicted respondents for an offence under Section 304A .High Court, without taking note of seriousness of matter, namely, due to the negligence of the two drivers, five persons traveling in the bus died, merely because of protracted trial of about 17 years and both of them had served sentence for a period of 15 days, reduced same to period already undergone and enhanced fine to an amount of Rs.25,000/- each.
B. Merely because fine amount had been enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, was not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck.
C. Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed on accused persons with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. Appeals were allowed to said extent.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary consideration when determining the quantum of sentence for causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving is deterrence. Courts should impose sentences that serve as a deterrent to prevent future accidents and promote responsible driving behavior (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Sentencing should be guided by a policy of correction, emphasizing the importance of training and moral responsibility among drivers to reduce road accidents and potential harm to human life and limbs (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where negligence results in death, the severity of the act warrants a proportionate punishment that reflects the gravity of the offence. Courts should not treat such offences leniently, especially considering the high rate of road accidents and their devastating consequences (!) (!) .
The law mandates that for an offence under the relevant section, there must be proof of death caused by the accused’s rash or negligent act, which did not amount to culpable homicide, and the act must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The imposition of a sentence should not be solely based on the length of custody already undergone or the amount of fine; the overall seriousness of the offence and its impact on victims’ families must be taken into account (!) (!) .
In cases involving fatalities due to negligence, courts are expected to impose appropriate custodial sentences, typically of a fixed term, coupled with fines that reflect the gravity of the offence and serve as a deterrent (!) .
The courts should reject overly lenient reductions of sentences that undermine the seriousness of negligent acts resulting in death, ensuring that the punishment aligns with the gravity of the offence and emphasizes deterrence (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam,J.
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 653 and 655 of 2000 for nature of offence and quantum of sentence whereby the High Court partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar as upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).
3) Brief facts:
(a) On 30.10.1992, one Dhian Singh-the Complainant (PW-3), after attending the last rites of one of his relatives at Village Mustabad, Amritsar was returning to Batala along with his family members in a Jhang Transport Bus bearing No. PB-02-D-9485. The bus was being driven at a very high speed by the driver-Respondent No. 1 herein. When the aforesaid bus reached the bus stand at Mudhal, at that time, a truck bearing No. PB-02-C-9665 which was being driven by Respondent No. 2 herein was coming from the opposite side at a very high speed. Both the drivers were driving their vehicle at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, both the vehicles collided with each other and two passengers, namely, Darshan Singh s/o Bela Singh and Banso w/o Ajit Singh died at the spot. The other passengers, namely, Sonia, Dalbir Singh and Ramandeep were taken to the Civil Hospital but later on they succumbed to their injuries.
(b) On the basis of the complaint of Dhian Singh, FIR No. 125/92 was registered under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of IPC and after formal investigation the case was forwarded to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar. The Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 14.12.1998, convicted both the accused persons and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for the offence under Section 304A and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to also undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279 IPC.
(c) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.12.1998, the accused persons preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide judgment dated 20.05.2000, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar.
(d) Questioning the same, the respondents herein filed Criminal Revision Petition being Nos. 653 and 655 of 2000 qua nature of offence and quantum of sentence before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 04.11.2009, while confining to the question of quantum of sentence only, reduced the sentence of the accused persons to the period already undergone (15 days) and in addition thereto, enhanced the fine to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each.
(e) Against the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab has filed these appeals before this Court by way of special leave petitions.
4) Heard Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Walia and Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents.
5) Before the High Court, the respondents, who preferred the revisions, did not dispute the finding relating to negligence rendered by the courts below and confined their submissions to the quantum of sentence only and prayed that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. In support of the above claim, they pointed out that they had suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years and had already undergone custody for 15 days, therefore, prayed for lenient view by modifying the sentence. On the other hand, on behalf of the State, it was submitted that inasmuch as the negligence was proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, no leniency should be shown to the accused. The High Court, without taking note of the seriousness of the matter, namely, due
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
