Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38593
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J
Unnisa @ Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
CRR 611/2006
B.L.Kushwah,Uma Kushwah,Sanjeev Kushwah,Advocate General
The court affirmed that appropriate sentencing for driving offences must prioritize deterrence, especially in cases resulting in death or serious injury.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304A, 337, and 338 - Conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death and injuries - Applicant convicted and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2500/- for causing death by negligence - The applicant was driving a tractor with passengers in a trolley, collecting fare while driving, leading to an accident. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 13)
(B) Sentencing - The court emphasized the need for deterrence in sentencing for driving offences, particularly when lives are lost or severely impacted due to negligence - The court declined to reduce the sentence despite the time elapsed since the offence, affirming the principle that the severity of the crime necessitates appropriate punishment. (Paras 16, 23)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was driving a tractor with passengers when he turned to collect fare, causing the vehicle to overturn, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. (Paras 2, 10)
Findings of Court:
The conviction for offences under Sections 279, 304A, 337, and 338 IPC was affirmed, and the sentence was upheld due to the serious nature of the offences. (Paras 13, 17)
Issues: The main issues were whether the sentence should be reduced due to the time elapsed since the accident and the appropriateness of the punishment given the circumstances. (Paras 10, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the offence and its impact on society necessitate a deterrent sentence, emphasizing that leniency could lead to further negligence and accidents. (Paras 16, 23)
Result: Criminal Revision dismissed; the applicant must surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. trial court proceedings (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. defense arguments (Para 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision under Section 397,401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 20-7-2006 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions judge (Fast Track Court), Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2005 and Judgment and Sentence dated 7-7-2005 passed by J.M.F.C. Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 30/1994, by which the applicant has been convicted for offences under Sections 279 ,304A,337 and 338 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2500/- for offence under Section 304-A of IPC .
2. According to the prosecution story, on 2-6-1992, the applicant was driving tractor bearing registration No. MBW 885 and the injured Hemvati, Signature Not Verified Manoj, Sushil Kumar, Vimla, Ajeet Singh etc. were sitting in the trolley No. MBW 885. The applicant was driving the tractor in rash and negligent manner. When the tractor crossed Adampur culvert, he turned back and started collecting fare from the passengers. As a result the tractor and trolley turned turtle and the persons sitting in the trolley sustained injuries. Gonabai died on the spot, and Makho, Sushil Kumar, Ajeet Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Vimla, Hemvati, Leela, Manoj sustained injuries. Police registered FIR in crime No. 81/1992. Lateron Ajeet Singh also lost his life.
3. Police after concluding the investigation, filed charge sheet for offence under Sections 279 ,337,304-A of IPC .
4. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 279 , 304A , 338 and 337 of IPC .
5. Applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
6. Prosecution examined Makhobai (P.W.1), Leela bai (P.W.2), Dr. R. Vimlesh (P.W.3), Betal Singh (P.W.4), Vimla Bai (P.W.50, Ashok Kumar (P.W.6), Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (P.W.7), and J.V.S. Chauhan (P.W.8).
7. The applicant did not examine any witness in his defence.
8. Trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 279 , 304-A , 337 , 338 of IPC and since, offence under Section 304-A of IPC is the grievous offence therefore, in the light of Section 71 of Cr.P.C. convicted the applicant for offence under Section 304-A of IPC .
9. Being aggrieved by judgment and sentence passed by Trial Court, applicant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the Appellate Court.
10. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by Counsel for applicant that since, the accident had taken place on 2- 6-1992 and 32 years have passed therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount may be enhanced.
11. Per contra, the submissions made by Counsel for applicant were vehemently opposed by Counsel for State. It is submitted that not only he was carrying passengers in the trolley contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, but was also collecting fare by turning around while driving the tractor.
12. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
13. The findings of conviction have not been challenged by the Counsel for the applicant. Further more, this Court in exercise of power of revision cannot interfere with the findings of facts unless and until they are shown to be perverse. Since, no perversity has been pointed by Counsel for applicant, therefore, conviction of applicant for offence under Section 279 , 304-A , 337 , 338 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
14. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the allegations are that not only the applicant was carrying passengers in the trolley but also tried to collect fare from them by turning around while driving the tractor as a result he lost control on the tractor. Two persons lost their life and 7 sustained injuries.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punj
