Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.520 OF 2015

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5825 of 2014]

State of Punjab

... Appellant

Versus

Saurabh Bakshi

... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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

Digitally signed by

Chetan Kumar

Date: 2015.03.30

17:21:32 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

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

3

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

4

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 we