IMPORTANT POINT
Principle of proportionality between crime and punishment has to be borne in mind – Principle of just punishment is bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision Application being CRR No. 4113/2016, by which, though the High Court has upheld the conviction of respondent herein for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, however, has reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to a prior deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heir of the deceased, the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeal.

2. That respondent herein-original accused was driving a Scorpio Car rashly and negligently, due to which one person died while over taking the ambulance from the left side. Because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent-accused two persons sitting in the ambulance also suffered injuries. Due to the collision, in fact, the ambulance turned turtle, which shows the manner in which the accused was driving the Scorpio with high speed. The respondent herein came to be tried for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. The learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and the sentence of the accused came to be confirmed by the learned Sessions Court. The accused preferred the present revision application before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, though the High Court has confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, however, has reduced the sentence to eight months SI subject to a prior deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the time when the High Court decided the revision application, the accused had undergone an actual sentence period of seven months and fifteen days and therefore, the High Court seems to have reduced the sentence to eight months only.

2.1 Against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has reduced the sentence to eight months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Kanika Ahuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has seriously erred in interfering with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

3.1 It is submitted that while reducing the sentence the High Court has shown un-due sympathy to the accused. It is submitted that while reducing the sentence the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the manner in which the accused committed the offence. It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused one innocent person lost his life and two persons suffered injuries who were travelling in the ambulance.

3.2 It is submitted that the accused was driving the Scorpio (car) with such a high speed and that too when he was on the cross road, rashly and negligently and due to the collision, the ambulance turned turtle. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court ought not to have shown un-due sympathy in favour of such an accused person, because of whose act of rash and negligent driving one innocent person lost his life and two persons sustained injuries.

3.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh, (2015) 1 SCC 222 and in the case of State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and restore the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Court.

4. While opposing the present appeal Shri Aftab Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, appointed by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, has submitted t