ORDER

This criminal revision, under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 01.05.2008 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Sheopur in Criminal Appeal No.11/2007 arising out of judgment and sentence dated 15.02.2007 passed by JMFC, Vijapur, District Sheopur in Criminal Case No.264/2002 by which applicant was convicted under section 304A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer SI for 1 month. The appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal, has modified the custodial sentence to 6 months' SI.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that on 28.06.2002 applicant, by driving Bus bearing registration No.MP07-F-0982, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed deceased Annu, as a result he died. The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 15/2/2007 held the applicant guilty for offence under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-. Being aggrieved by judgment and sentence passed by Trial Court, appellant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court, by judgment and sentenced dated 1/5/2008, modified the jail sentence, as awarded by the trial Court, to 6 months' SI.

3. Challenging the conviction of applicant, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that offence took place in the year 2002 and 22 long years have passed, therefore, jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine.

4. Per contra the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.

5. Heard, learned counsel for parties.

6. Road accidents on account of rash and negligent driving of drivers are on rise and since drivers are negligent, therefore, either people are suffering permanent disability, or they are losing their family members.

7. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court can adopt a lenient view by reducing jail sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant or not?

8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur decided on 28.03.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2023 has held as under:-

“5.1 The High Court has not at all considered the fact that the IPC is punitive and deterrent in nature. The principal aim and object are to punish offenders for offences committed under IPC. Sections 279 and 304A can be invoked only if act of the accused is negligent and rash. As observed by this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ramchandra Rabidas (2019) 10 SCC 75, this Court time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified. As observed and held, the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind. As observed that the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence

5.2 At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Saurabh Bakshi (supra), in which this Court was considering the offence under Section 304A of IPC is required to be referred to. On the principle of sentencing, this Court has observed and held as under: -

“The eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, said centuries back : “Laws can never be enforced unless fear supports them.” The statement 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, civilised 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 anyone defies law, he