IMPORTANT POINT
Sentencing has a social goal. Punishment for rash and negligent driving in a drunken state should be more harsh. Lawmakers advised to scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the sentencing policy in Section 304A, IPC.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

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 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. 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 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. 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 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 279/304A IPC to which the r