Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Parul Bala Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL. REV. P. No. 35 of 2006Decided On : 07-08-2014
For the Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:C.S. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents/Defendant:S. Deb Gupta, Advocate
The need to maintain a deterrent element in sentencing sphere for drivers guilty of rash and negligent driving.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Road Accident - The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a minor. The court considered the deterrent element in sentencing sphere and modified the sentence to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a minor and sentenced to R.I. for three months and a fine. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court and appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not interfere with the judgment. The court considered the deterrent element in sentencing sphere and modified the sentence.
Issues: Conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death, appeal against the conviction and sentence, consideration of leniency in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the Supreme Court's ruling that leniency shown to drivers guilty of rash driving could lead to further escalation of road accidents and emphasized the need to maintain a deterrent element in sentencing sphere.
Final Decision: The accused's sentence was modified to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for 15 days.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J :--1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 37(4)/2005, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2005, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in G.R. Case No. 249 of 2001.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha, for the petitioner and learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, for the State-respondent.
3. The accused Paritosh Das was tried in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in connection with G.R. Case No. 249 of 2001 for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304A of IPC. The allegation was that on 19.09.2001 the accused Paritosh Das was driving a Truck vehicle bearing No. AS-01C 4489 through Assam Agartala Road and at Panisagar, in front of Gitanjali Hotel, because of rash and negligent driving, a minor boy, namely, Biplab Das, aged about 3 years, was ran over. The vehicle was detained by the police and the accused petitioner was arrested.
4. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of the charge under Sections 279/304A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and also to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. On an appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, by impugned judgment dated 25.01.2006 upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and hence, this revisional application.
6. Learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha, appearing for the petitioner very fairly submitted that there is evidence on record that the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. But there is nothing that on any earlier occasion any such accident occurred in the hand of the accused petitioner and so, a lenient view may be taken in respect of the punishment and at least the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be given to the accused.
7. Learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb Gupta for the respondent submitted that road accident has become a regular affair and lives are taken away because of the whimsical rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and so, there cannot be any further lenient view.
8. In a revisional application this Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment/order impugned and the regularity of the proceedings of the Courts below. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless it is clearly shown that there was perverse finding given by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Since the finding of the trial Court as well as appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, I find nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court, which is affirmed by the appellate Court. In respect of punishment, as I find, the trial Court has taken a lenient view.
9. The Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Dalbir Singh V. State of Haryana & ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1677 that 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 deterrent element in sentencing sphere. An
