STATE OF PUNJAB versus DIL BAHADUR on 28 March 2023

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

2. That respondent herein – original accused was driving a ScorpioCar rashly and negligently, due to which one person died while overtaking the ambulance from the left side. Because of the rash and negligentdriving on the part of the respondent – accused two persons sitting in theambulance also suffered injuries. Due to the collision, in fact, theambulance turned turtle, which shows the manner in which the accusedwas driving the Scorpio with high speed. The respondent herein came tobe tried for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. Thelearned Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections279 and 304A of the IPC and the sentence of the accused came to beconfirmed by the learned Sessions Court. The accused preferred thepresent revision application before the High Court. By the impugnedjudgment and order, though the High Court has confirmed the convictionof 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 ofRs. 25,000/-. At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the timewhen the High Court decided the revision application, the accused hadundergone an actual sentence period of seven months and fifteen days A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand therefore, the High Court seems to have reduced the sentence toeight months only.

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

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

3.1 It is submitted that while reducing the sentence the High Courthas shown undue sympathy to the accused. It is submitted that whilereducing the sentence the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the manner in which the accused committed the offence.DIt is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the factthat because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accusedone innocent person lost his life and two persons suffered injuries whowere travelling in the ambulance.

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

3.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisionsof this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. SurendraSingh (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 presentappeal and restore the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court andGconfirmed by the learned Sessions Court.

4. While opposing the present appeal Shri Aftab Ali Khan, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused, appointed bythe Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, has submitted that whenconsidering the mitigating circumstances the High Court has reducedHthe sentence to eight months on a prior deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to the family/legal heir of the deceased, thesame may not be interfered with by this Court.

4.1 It is submitted that the respondent – accused is a poor personand was only a driver and therefore, if he is sent to undergo two yearsRI, he and his family members will suffer. It is submitted that when theaforesaid facts have been considered by the High Court and the HighCourt has reduced the sentence, the same may not be interfered with bythis Court.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveparties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent– accused has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and304A of IPC. His conviction for the aforesaid offences have beenconfirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order.However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasinterfered with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court affirmedby the learned Sessions Court and has reduced the sentence from twoyears to eight months. However, while reducing the sentence, the HighCourt has not at all considered the gravity of the offence and the mannerin which the accused committed the offence and driving the Scorpio inrash and negligent manner due to which one innocent person lost his lifeand two persons who were travelling in the ambulance sustained theinjuries. The High Court has also not properly appreciated and consideredthe fact that due to collision the ambulance turned turtle. This shows theimpact on the ambulance and the rash and negligent driving on the partof the accused. Cogent reasons were given by the learned Trial Courtwhile sentencing the accused to undergo two years RI for the offenceunder Section 304A of IPC. From the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court, it appears that the case on behalf of theaccused that he is coming from a poor family, is considered as mitigatingcircumstance. However, the High Court has not properly consideredthat because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accusedone innocent person died and two persons who were travelling in theambulance sustained injuries.

5.1 The High Court has not at all considered the fact that the IPCis punitive and deterrent in nature. The principal aim and object are topunish offenders for offences committed under IPC. Sections 279 and304A can be invoked only if act of the accused is negligent and rash. Asobserved by this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARamchandra Rabidas (2019) 10 SCC 75, this Court time and againemphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible forcausing 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 onlosing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitationBof the victim cannot be quantified. As observed and held, the principle ofproportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne inmind. As observed that the principle of just punishment is the bedrock ofsentencing in respect of a criminal offence.

5.2 At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of SaurabhCBakshi (supra), in which this Court was considering the offence underSection 304A of IPC is required to be referred to. On the principle ofsentencing, 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.” TheDstatement has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour,in today’s society. It is the duty of every right-thinking citizen toshow veneration to law so that an orderly, civilised and peacefulsociety emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse toany kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. If anyoneEdefies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending on theconcept of proportionality that the law recognises. It can neverbe forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by thecompetent legislatures, subject to judicial scrutiny withinconstitutionally established parameters, is to protect the collectiveinterest and save every individual that forms a constituent of theFcollective from unwarranted hazards. It is sometimes said in anegocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind theindividual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large bodyof people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the lawwithstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy,Gthe individual notions are to be ignored. At times certain crimesassume more accent and gravity depending on the nature andimpact of the crime on the society. No court should ignore thesame being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of thecourt to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and beit said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the H

society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. In thiscontext one may recapitulate the saying of Justice Benjamin N.Cardozo “Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accusertoo.” And, therefore, the requisite norm has to be the establishedprinciples laid down in precedents. It is neither to be guided by asense of sentimentality nor to be governed by prejudices.”

5.2.1 It is further observed that the principle of sentencingrecognises the corrective measures but there are occasions when thedeterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of thecase.

5.2.2 In the aforesaid decision, the High Court reduced thesentence and shown the mercy while applying the principle that paymentof compensation is a factor for reduction. To that, this Court has observedthat it is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a waymockery of justice. It is observed and held as under:- “Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognises thecorrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrenceis an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case.In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say thatthe High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy inapplying the principle that payment of compensation is a factorfor reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realmof misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Becausejustice is “the crowning glory”, “the sovereign mistress” and“queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights notonly the lives of the victims but of many others around them. Itultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system.”

5.2.3 Showing the concern about increasing the road accidents, itis observed in the said decision as under: -

“India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is anonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the“Emperors of all they survey.” Drunkenness contributes tocareless driving where the other people become their prey. Thepoor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think ofuncertainty and the civilised persons drive in constant fear but stillapprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people whoproject themselves as “larger than life.” In such obtaining A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Acircumstances, the lawmakers should scrutinise, relook and revisitthe sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC, so with immenseanguish.”

5.3 At this stage, another decision of this Court in the case ofSurendra Singh (supra) which is also on the offences under SectionsB279 and 304A of IPC, is required to be referred to. In the case beforethis Court, the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused for theoffence under Section 304A sentenced the accused to undergo two yearsRI. The High Court while maintaining the conviction, reduced thesentence awarded by the learned Trial Court from two years RI to theperiod already undergone and granted a further compensation of Rs.C2000/- payable to the widow/mother of the deceased. While disapprovingthe view taken by the High Court and setting aside the order passed bythe High Court reducing the sentence, this Court has observed inparagraphs 6 to 14 as under: - “6. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of evidence theDtrial court came to the conclusion that the accused had endangeredthe life of Vijay by driving the jeep on a public road in a rash andnegligent manner. The accused dashed the jeep against a puliafirst and then against a babul tree. As a result of such accidentVijay Singh, who was travelling in the jeep got injured and died,Eand another person Mangilal, who was also in the jeep, receivedinjuries. We are of the opinion that the trial court has not committedany illegality in passing the order of conviction and in the appealpreferred by the accused findings of the trial court were affirmed.However, without proper appreciation of the evidence andconsideration of gravity of the offence, the learned Single JudgeFof the High Court has shown undue sympathy by modifying theconviction to the period already undergone.

7. In our considered opinion, the High Court while passing theimpugned order [Surendra Singh v. State of M.P., CriminalRevision No. 3 of 2008, decided on 22-8-2012 (MP)] hasGcompletely failed to follow the principles enunciated by this Courtin a catena of decisions. Undue sympathy by means of imposinginadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system toundermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and thesociety cannot endure long under serious threats. If the courts do H

not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to personalvengeance. Therefore, the duty of any court is to award propersentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the mannerin which it was committed. (See Sevaka Perumal v. State ofT.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724 : AIR 1991 SC1463] )

8. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. [(1994) 2 SCC 220: 1994 SCC (Cri) 358] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 239,paras 14-15)

“14. In recent years, the rising crime rate—particularly violentcrime against women has made the criminal sentencing by thecourts a subject of concern. Today there are admitted disparities.Some criminals get very harsh sentences while many receivegrossly different sentence for an essentially equivalent crime anda shockingly large number even go unpunished thereby encouragingthe criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakeningthe system’s credibility. Of course, it is not possible to lay downany cut and dry formula relating to imposition of sentence but theobject of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not gounpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has thesatisfaction that justice has been done to it. In imposing sentences,in the absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider varietyof factors and after considering all those factors and taking anoverall view of the situation, impose sentence which they considerto be an appropriate one. Aggravating factors cannot be ignoredand similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be taken intoconsideration.

15. In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given casemust depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of thecriminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim.Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which thecourts respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals.Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befittingto the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of thecrime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of thecriminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the societyat large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

9. While considering this aspect, the Supreme Courtin Mahesh v. State of M.P. [(1987) 3 SCC 80 : 1987 SCC (Cri)379 : (1987) 2 SCR 710] remarked that: (SCC p. 82, para 6)

A

“6. … it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants toescape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidenceBand such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the appellantswould be to render the justicing system of this country suspect.The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, heunderstands and appreciates the language of deterrence morethan the reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not ignorethe need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process.”

C

10. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar [(2013) 9 SCC 516 : (2014)1 SCC (Cri) 159] this Court has observed that: (SCC p. 521, para10)

“10. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevantDfactors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature hasbestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in thesentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care andcaution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionateto the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmarkof proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at aEfair and impartial verdict.”

D

This Court further observed that: (Hazara Singh case [(2013) 9SCC 516 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 159] , SCC p. 521, para 11)

“11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentenceFimposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committedand it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. ThisCourt has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality insentencing of offenders in numerous cases.”

11. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 2 SCC359 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 499] the Apex Court opined that: (SCCGpp. 361-62, paras 7-8)

“7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claimsand demands. Security of persons and property of the people isan essential function of the State. It could be achieved throughinstrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross- H

cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the newchallenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencingsystem to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness wouldundermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of societyand stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of lawwhich must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of ‘order’ shouldmeet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Lawin Changing Society stated that: ‘State of criminal law continuesto be—as it should be—a decisive reflection of social consciousnessof society.’ Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, lawshould adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based onfactual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be sternwhere it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrantsto be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the natureof the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed,the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused,the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstancesare relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentencewould do more harm to the justice system to undermine the publicconfidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endureunder such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every courtto award proper sentence having regard to the nature of theoffence and the manner in which it was executed or committed,etc.”

12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein ValiMohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 7 SCC 254 :(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 368] observed as follows: (SCC p. 281,paras 99-100)

“99. … The object of awarding appropriate sentence shouldbe to protect the society and to deter the criminal fromachieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law by imposingappropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts wouldoperate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentencewhich reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencingprocess has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitudeby imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offenceswill be resultwise counterproductive in the long run andagainst the interest of society which needs to be cared forand strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in thesentencing system.

100. Justice demands that courts should impose punishmentbefitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrenceof the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rightsof the victim of the crime but the society at large whileconsidering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Thecourt will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment isnot awarded for a crime which has been committed not onlyagainst the individual victim but also against the society towhich both the criminal and the victim belong.”

13. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy to imposeinadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system toundermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is theduty of every court to award proper sentence having regard tothe nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executedor committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider allrelevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question ofsentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate withthe gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in viewthe rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at largewhile considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time withoutconsidering the degree of the offence will be counterproductivein the long run and against the interest of the society.

14. In a recent decision in State of M.P. v. Bablu [(2014) 9 SCC281 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 1] , after considering and following theearlier decisions, this Court reiterated the settled proposition oflaw that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the impositionof adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensuratewith the gravity, nature of crime and the manner in which theoffence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interestand conscience of the society while considering the determinativefactor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment shouldnot be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balancewhile awarding the sentence as awarding lesser sentenceencourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, the societysuffers.

A

5.4 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case ofSurendra Singh (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the impugnedBjudgment and order passed by the High Court interfering with the sentenceimposed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First AppellateCourt by showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable andthe same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theCpresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court reducing the sentence while maintaining the convictionfor the offence under Section 304A of IPC from two years RI to eightmonths SI is hereby quashed and set aside. The sentence imposed bythe learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court (learnedDSessions Court) is hereby restored. Now the accused be taken into custodyto undergo the remaining sentence. The accused is granted four weeks’time to surrender. Present appeal is accordingly, allowed.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Shevali Monga, LCRAs)

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H