Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, J.
Vismay Amitbhai Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 864, 1016 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Motor Vehicles Act - sections 177, 184 read with section 134 (1) (b) - Indian Penal Code - sections 304(II), 279 and 427 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Truth is cherished principle and is guiding star of Indian Criminal Justice System - For justice to be done truth must prevail - Truth is soul of Justice sole idea of Criminal Justice System is to see that justice is done - Justice will be done when no innocent person is punished and guilty person is not allowed to go scot free - With these golden words of Apex Court present appeals deserve consideration - Challenge by convict Appellant is to judgment and order - Ended in convicting present Appellant for offences punishable - Held, court held that question of sentence is primarily a matter of discretion of trial court and unless exercised capriciously in sentence awarded by court is grossly and manifestly inadequate Appellate Court is not required to interfere - If already acted along accepted judicial lines no interference is desirable - There has to be strong reasons for Appellate Court to enhance same and not because it could have recorded higher penalty if left to itself - No grievance against appellant and has in fact prayed for Court to take a lenient view and also has urged for sentence of imprisonment to be reduced with sufficient amount of compensation having been paid noticing overall facts and circumstances discussed - Appeal dismissed (Para 83)
Facts of the Case:
First Information Report came to be lodged being the CR. No. I-No. 79 of 2013 for the offences punishable under sections 279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offences under section 177, 184, 134(1) (b) of the MV Act. Later on, additional charge-sheet came to be laid adding the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. To prove the case against the Appellant, the prosecution examined 33 witnesses and produced various documents.
Finding of the Court:
Court held that question of sentence is primarily a matter of discretion of trial court and unless exercised capriciously in sentence awarded by court is grossly and manifestly inadequate Appellate Court is not required to interfere - If already acted along accepted judicial lines no interference is desirable - There has to be strong reasons for Appellate Court to enhance same and not because it could have recorded higher penalty if left to itself - No grievance against appellant and has in fact prayed for Court to take a lenient view and also has urged for sentence of imprisonment to be reduced with sufficient amount of compensation having been paid noticing overall facts and circumstances discussed.
Result: Appeal dismissed
Key Points: - The appellate court reaffirms it may review and possibly modify sentences under 304 Part-II/338, but must avoid unwarranted interference and give due regard to deterrence and societal impact (!) (!) (!) . - Compensation alone cannot automatically substitute for imprisonment; court must assess whether compensation and settlement justify reducing or quashing conviction/sentence, with guidelines from Alister Pareira, Dalip Singh, and B.S. Joshi line of authorities (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The case discusses limits and conditions for compounding non-compoundable offences and distinguishes inherent powers of quashing under 482 Cr.P.C. from section 320 compounding, emphasizing seriousness of road-traffic offences and need for deterrence (!) (!) (!) . - Admissibility of electronic evidence (DVDs, CCTV) governed by 65B and Anvar P.V. standards; Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad and Sonu alias Amar clarifies that certificate requirements can be relaxed in interest of justice, but generally CCTV/DVD evidence requires proper certification unless exceptions apply (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Identification issues (TI parade, hostile witnesses) analyzed with principles from Lalitkumar Sharma, Malkhansingh; courts emphasize reliance on corroborated evidence beyond identification alone (!) (!) (!) . - The court stresses deterrence and societal protection as paramount in sentencing for grave road offences, warning against leniency in cases causing multiple deaths, while acknowledging compensation to victims’ families cannot erase societal interest (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SONIA GOKANI, J.
1. Truth is the cherished principle and is the guiding star of the Indian Criminal Justice System. For justice to be done, truth must prevail. Truth is the soul of Justice. The sole idea of Criminal Justice System is to see that justice is done. Justice will be done when no innocent person is punished and the guilty person is not allowed to go scot free. With these golden words of the Apex Court, present appeals deserve consideration.
1.1. The challenge herein by the convict, Appellant is to the judgment and order dated 13.07.2015 delivered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in the Sessions Case No. 41 of 2013 ended in convicting the present Appellant for the offences punishable under sections 304(II), 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC hereinafter) and under sections 177, 184 read with section 134 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act hereinafter) and sentenced him for five years of Rigorous imprisonment under section 304(II) and also imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- failing which to undergo one year of simple imprisonment for the offence under section 427, one year of imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and failing which to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and for the offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) failing which to undergo simple imprisonment of one month with further direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lakh) only to the family of each victim, making it total of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). Though the appellant was convicted under section 177, 184 read with section 134(1)(b) of the M.V. Act, no separate sentence is awarded under these provisions.
2. The State of Gujarat has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1016 of 2015 for enhancement of sentence as well as for enhancing the amount of compensation. Again, one of the family members of the victim also had preferred the Revision Application No. 374 of 2015 challenging the very judgment and order and also sought enhancement of sentence, which has been withdrawn during the pendency of these appeals as detailed hereinafter.
3. In this judgment, the accused convict shall be addressed as the Appellant and the State of Gujarat as the Respondent hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
(A) Factual Martix:
4. Seminal facts sans peripheral details as per the case of prosecution and the charges framed against the Appellant are capsulised as under.
4.1. It is alleged that on 24.02.2013 at around 12 o’clock in the midnight, the Appellant was driving BMW car bearing registration number CH-1-AE-9360 from Pakwan Cross Road towards Premchand Nagar Road, near Judges’ Bungalows, at an excessive speed of more than 110 km. per hour, rashly and negligently, although being conscious of the Notification promulgated by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad of requirement of driving a vehicle within a particular speed limit. It is also alleged that he was fully aware that there is a considerable traffic in the said area even at night and yet, at the three roads intersection (T-Junction) near “Laxmi Ganthiya Rath” the Appellant thrashed one motor cycle coming from Mansi circle and turning towards Lad society, causing the driver and pillion rider to be thrown 15 feet up in the air and subsequently dragged the same with the car of Appellant, causing the tree to bend and also causing huge damage to the car. Deceased and the pillion rider of the motorcycle both succumbed to the injuries in this accident. Victim Shivam died on the spot and the pillion rider Rahul Patel on 27.02.2013, while under the treatment due to multiple serious injuries. It is further alleged that Appellant did not apply brakes nor tried to help the injured, nor intimated the police authority but ha
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
