Mohd Nasim vs The State
2023 Latest Caselaw 4418 Del

                          $~

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                               Reserved on: October 12, 2023
                                                          Decided on: November 3, 2023

                          +      CRL.REV.P. 296/2017

                                 MOHD NASIM                                 ..... Petitioner
                                                   Through:     Mr. Sanjay Manchanda, Mr.
                                                                Rahul Miglani and Ms.
                                                                DevikaSamant, Advocates
                                                          V

                                 THE STATE                                  ..... Respondent
                                                   Through:     Mr.    Yudhvir       Singh
                                                                Chauhan, APP for State with
                                                                SI Pardeep Kumar, P.S.
                                                                Mandawali
                                 CORAM
                                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

                                 JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under sections

397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Code") read with under section 482 of the Code to

set aside the order dated 27.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the

impugned order") passed by the court of the District and Sessions

Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 1 16:16:47 appellate court") in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 250/2016 titled as

Mohd. Nasim V The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and the

judgment dated 17.03.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the

impugned judgment") and order on sentence dated 15.07.2016

passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East,

Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in

case arising out of the FIR bearing no.151/2009 registered under

sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred

to as "IPC") at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur.

2. The relevant facts as reflected from the impugned judgment

passed by the trial court are that SI Yad Ram (hereinafter referred to

as "the Investigating Officer") after receipt of DD bearing no. 22A

dated 10.04.2009 recorded at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur regarding an

accident went to the spot where he found that one rickshaw used for

carrying goods and a blue line bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB

9786 plying on route no. 534 (hereinafter referred to as "the

offending vehicle") were lying in accidental condition. Thereafter,

the Investigating Officer went to LBS Hospital where he found that

the injured Mahesh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") s/o

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 2 16:16:47 Bhuri Lal was under treatment. The Investigating Officer recorded

the statement of Mohd. Sabir (hereinafter referred to as "the

complainant") wherein he stated that on 10.04.2009 at around 03:45

PM at T-point, Narwana Road, near Paradise Apartment, he was

coming on rickshaw which was being driven by the deceased and the

complainant was also sitting on the said rickshaw. In meantime the

offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent

manner, came and hit the rickshaw from the back side. The

complainant along with the deceased fell down on the right side of

the road due to the collision and the rear tyre of the conductor side of

the bus ran over the deceased as a result of which he sustained

injuries but the complainant did not sustain any injury. PCR removed

the deceased to the hospital. The driver of the bus was also

apprehended by the complainant with the help of public and was

handed over to the police. Thereafter, the present FIR was got

registered under sections 279/337 IPC on the basis of the statement

made by the complainant. The Investigating Officer conducted

further investigation. The deceased died during the treatment and the

post-mortem on dead body of the deceased was conducted. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 3 16:16:47 Investigating Officer added section 304A IPC due to the death of the

deceased. The charge-sheet after conclusion of investigation was

filed on 05.11.2009. The concerned court had taken the cognizance

and after complying with section 207 of the Code, notice under

section 251 of the Code was given to the petitioner/accused/driver

Mohd. Nasim (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") for the

offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC vide order dated

06.05.2010 to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner examined 11

witnesses including the complainant as PW-3 and the Investigating

Officer as PW-11. The prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed

vide order dated 07.07.2012. The statement of the petitioner was

recorded under section 313 of the Code read with section 281 of the

Code vide proceedings dated 21.07.2012 wherein the petitioner

pleaded innocence and false implication. The petitioner also stated

that no accident was caused by him. The accident had happened due

to the collision between one Toyota Innova car and the rickshaw

being driven by the deceased. The deceased as result of the collision,

had fallen down near the tyre of his bus and as such he did not have

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 4 16:16:47 any role in the accident. The petitioner preferred to lead defence

evidence and examined Jawed Khan as DW1. The defence evidence

was ordered to be closed vide order dated 29.09.2015.

2.1 The trial court vide the impugned judgment convicted the

petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC

and vide order on sentence dated 15.07.2016 sentenced the petitioner

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 11 months and to pay

compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and

in default of payment of compensation, to undergo further simple

imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable

under section 304A IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay

fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

further simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days for the offence

punishable under section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered

to be run concurrently.

2.2 The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

the order on sentence dated 15.07.2016 passed by the trial court

preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing CA no. 250/2016 titled as

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 5 16:16:47 Mohd. Nasim V The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) which was

ordered to be dismissed by the appellate court vide the impugned

order.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present petition to set

aside the impugned order passed by the appellate court on the

grounds that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts of the

case. The courts below failed to appreciate that the statement made

by PW3/complainant regarding the manner in which the alleged

accident took place is contrary to the medical evidence. The place of

accident as shown in the site plan did not indicate any possibility of

negligence on the part of the petitioner while driving the offending

vehicle. The prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable

doubt. The presence of the eyewitness i.e. PW3/complainant is

doubtful on the basis of contradictory evidence led by the

prosecution. The Investigating Officer did not include any other

public witness who was stated to be present at the time and place of

the accident. There were material contradictions in the respective

statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The

counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned order passed by

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 6 16:16:47 the appellate court and the impugned judgment and the order on

sentence dated 15.07.2016 passed by the trial court be aside and the

petitioner be acquitted.

4. The prosecution during trial in support of its case examined the

complainant as PW3 who deposed that on 10.08.2009, he along with

the deceased was going from Sector 63, Noida to Mandawli on

rickshaw and at about 03:45 pm at Khichripur, T-Point, Narwana

Road, opposite Paradise Apartment, the offending vehicle came in a

rash and negligent manner and hit the rickshaw from the back side as

a result of which, the rickshaw being plied by the deceased

overturned and as a result of which the rear wheel of the bus ran over

the deceased. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot.

PW3/complainant also identified his signature on statement

Ex.PW3/A. PW3 was cross examined wherein deposed that he had

seen the driver of the bus i.e. the petitioner and he again saw the

petitioner when the petitioner was apprehended by the public

persons. The offending vehicle was full of passengers.

PW3/complainant denied the suggestion that the rickshaw was

overturned as a result of its collision with one Toyota Innova car. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 7 16:16:47 prosecution also examined SI (Retd.) Kedar Nath as PW5 who

mechanically inspected the offending vehicle on 10.04.2009 vide

report Ex.PW5/A and opined that the front bumper center of the left

side of the bus was dented and dent was noticed to be fresh. PW7

Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh conducted the post-mortem on the body of

the deceased on 11.04.2009 vide report Ex. PW7/A and opined that

all the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of the death was

shock due to blunt force impact. PW11/Investigating Officer deposed

about the modalities of the investigation conducted by him.

5. The perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the trial court

reflects that that the trial court had relied upon the testimony of

PW3/complainant who during deposition identified the petitioner as

well as the offending vehicle. The trial court also referred the

testimony of PW3/complainant who deposed that the petitioner hit

the rickshaw with his bus from the back side as a result of which the

deceased fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus. The

trial court also observed that the testimony of PW3/complainant is

supported by the MLC Ex.PW6/A of the deceased wherein it was

reported that the deceased had sustained abrasion over the right lower

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 8 16:16:47 quadrant of the abdomen, lacerated wound of 3 cm × 1 cm on right

scrotal junction, deep lacerated wound of approximately 3 cm over

the perineal region just anterior to the anal opening with active

bleeding which proved that the deceased sustained injuries over the

middle portion of his body. The trial court did not believe the

testimony of DW1 Jawed Khan examined by the petitioner in his

defence. The trial court as such had placed reliance on the testimony

of PW3/complainant in convicting the petitioner vide the impugned

judgment and ultimately opined that the petitioner was driving the

offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while doing so,

he caused the death of the deceased.

5.1 The appellate court in the impugned order also relied upon the

testimony of PW3/complainant wherein he deposed that the

petitioner by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner caused the accident as a result of which the deceased died.

The appellate court also relied upon the testimony of PW5 SI (Retd.)

Kedar Nath who conducted the mechanical inspection of the

offending vehicle. The appellate court also opined that the offending

vehicle had caused the accident due to which the deceased sustained

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 9 16:16:47 injuries and died. The appellate court also did not accept the

contradictions in the respective testimonies of the witnesses

examined by the prosecution and held them to be without any

consequence. The appellate court also opined that PW3/complainant

was a natural and trustworthy witness.

6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner cannot

be convicted on the basis of bald statement made by

PW3/complainant and there was no evidence on record regarding the

speed of the offending vehicle. The testimony of PW3/complainant is

not inspiring any confidence and the manner of accident as projected

by the prosecution and deposed by PW3/complainant is highly

improbable. The prosecution has not examined any other public

witness and PW3/complainant was an interested witness being a

friend of the deceased and as such his testimony cannot be relied

upon. The trial court was not justified in rejecting the testimony of

DW1 Jawed Khan. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon Vinod

Kumar V State, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4347.

6.1 The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State

argued that the testimony of PW3/complainant was sufficient to

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 10 16:16:47 prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the

petitioner can be convicted only on the basis of the testimony of

PW3/complainant. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned

judgment passed by the trial court and the impugned order passed by

the appellate court. Hence, the present petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the testimony of the

PW3/complainant cannot be relied upon as he was an interested

witness being a friend of the deceased. PW3/complainant happened

to be a friend of the deceased. The issue which needs judicial

consideration is that whether the testimony of PW3/complainant

being interested witness can be relied upon against the petitioner. The

testimony of a related witness can be relied upon if it is found

trustworthy and a mere relationship does not disqualify a witness.

The interested or related witnesses are as competent to depose the

facts as any other witness, however such evidence has to be carefully

scrutinized and appreciated before reaching to a conclusion about the

guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court in Masalti V State of U.P.,

(1964) 8 SCR 133 observed that there is no doubt that when a

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 11 16:16:47 criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are

partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such

evidence. It was further observed that whether or not there are

discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes to

the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the

evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into

account. However, evidence given by such witnesses should not be

discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or

interested witnesses and the mechanical rejection of such evidence on

the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of

justice. The Supreme Court in Hari Obula Reddi & Others V State

of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 82 held that evidence of

interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence and it

cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that the evidence of

interested witnesses can never form the basis of conviction unless

corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by

independent evidence. However, the evidence of interested witnesses

should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.

The Supreme court in Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 12 16:16:47 V State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 3010 observed that it is

well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on

the ground that he is either partisan or interested or close relative to

the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible

and the said evidence only requires scrutiny with more care and

caution, so that neither the guilty escapes nor the innocent is wrongly

convicted. It is as such an accepted proposition of law that the

testimony of an interested witness can be relied upon if it is otherwise

inspiring the confidence of the court and found to be trustworthy. The

testimony of PW3/complainant cannot be discarded due to reason

that he was known to the deceased being his friend. There is no

evidence on record that PW3/complainant was having any ill will or

motive against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in present case.

The testimony of PW3/complainant is narrative of facts leading to the

fatal accident and after careful analysis with caution, it is found to be

trustworthy and reliable. The argument advanced by the counsel for

the petitioner that the testimony of PW3/complainant cannot be relied

upon being an interested witness is without any basis and is

accordingly rejected.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 13 16:16:47 7.1 The counsel for the petitioner also argued that the Investigating

Officer did not include any other public person in the investigation

which is raising doubt as to the prosecution story. It is correct that the

Investigating Officer did not include any public person in the

investigation who is stated to have witnessed the accident. It is the

quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for

proving or disproving a fact. The evidence should be cogent, credible

and trustworthy. It was observed in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera V

State of Odisha, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1336 that the conviction can

be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she passes

the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the

quality of evidence that is important. The Supreme Court in Veer

Singh & Others V State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as

under:-

Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 14 16:16:47 on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.

The prosecution does not require number of eye witnesses to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is one eye

witness and his testimony is up to the mark, the conviction can be

based upon the same. The Supreme Court in Namdeo V State of

Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 held as under:-

In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs." In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290, the Court observed; "Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 15 16:16:47 The testimony of PW3/complainant after being analysed carefully

inspires confidence and is trustworthy and can be safely relied upon.

The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is without

any legal force. There is legal force in the arguments advanced by the

Additional Public Prosecutor that the sole testimony of

PW3/complainant is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution.

8. This court in Ajeet Singh V The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

and Another, CRL.A. 612/2023 decided on 31.10.2023 observed

that the witness is considered to be an important factor or integral

part of the administration of justice and role of a witness is

paramount in the criminal justice system. The witness by giving

evidence assists the court in discovery of the truth. The Supreme

Court in Mahender Chawla and Others V Union of India and

Others, (2019) 14 SCC 615 observed that witnesses are important

players in the judicial system, who help the judges in arriving at

correct factual findings. The instrument of evidence is the medium

through which facts, either disputed or required to be proved, are

effectively conveyed to the courts. The testimony of

PW3/complainant reflects that the offending vehicle was being

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 16 16:16:47 driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. It is also

appearing that the place of accident was a crowded place where the

petitioner was required to take necessary precautions on the road

while driving the offending vehicle. It is also proved by the

prosecution that the petitioner while driving the offending vehicle

had hit the rickshaw which was being plied by the deceased from the

back side which is reflective of the fact that the petitioner was not

vigilant with respect to the vehicles/rickshaw being driven on the

road ahead of the offending vehicle. The petitioner was under an

obligation to take appropriate care on the road particularly towards

the rickshaw which was being plied by the deceased. Mere hitting of

the rickshaw by the offending vehicle itself reflects negligence on

part of the petitioner. The prosecution has led sufficient evidence to

establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. PW5 SI

(Retd.) Kedar Nath in his mechanical inspection report Ex. PW5/A

also reported that there was fresh dent on the front bumper center of

the left side of the offending vehicle. The post mortem report

Ex.PW7/A also proved that the deceased had died because of shock

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 17 16:16:47 due to blunt force impact and all the injuries were ante-mortem in

nature.

8.1 Every person accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent

and burden lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court in Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade and Another V State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2

SCC 793 emphasized that our jurisprudential enthusiasm for

presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to

make criminal justice potent and realistic. The Supreme Court in

State of U.P. V Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 897 observed that it is

function of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept

what appears to be true and reject the rest. The Supreme Court in

Gurbachan Singh V Sat Pal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209

observed that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt

must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby

destroy social defence. The Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi and

Others V State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 observed that there is

sharp decline in ethical values in public life and in present days when

crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and society is so

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 18 16:16:47 much affected thereby duties and responsibilities of the courts have

become much more. It was further observed the maxim "let hundred

guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is

in practice changing world over and courts have been compelled to

accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally

suffers by wrong acquittals". However, the Supreme Court in Sujit

Biswas V State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 also held that

suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the

prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be"

true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to

steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. The prosecution

from the quality and quantity of evidence led by it proved that the

petitioner was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently

and caused death of the petitioner by accident. The arguments

advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as detailed hereinabove

were considered in right perspective but are without any legal and

factual force. The impugned order passed by the appellate court and

the impugned judgment passed by the trial court are justified and do

not call for any interference.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 19 16:16:47

9. The petitioner vide the impugned judgment was convicted for

the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304A IPC and vide

order on sentence dated 15.07.2016 was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 11 months and to pay compensation of

Rs. 30,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of

payment of compensation, to undergo further simple imprisonment

for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 304A

IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple

imprisonment for a period of 5 days for the offence punishable under

section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to be run

concurrently. As per the nominal roll, the petitioner had remained in

judicial custody for 02 months and 09 days. The petitioner has

already paid the compensation and fine as per the nominal roll.

9.1 Sentencing is an important task in the future prevention

of crime. The criminal law should impose adequate and just

sentence after taking into consideration nature and gravity of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 20 16:16:47 the crime. The Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh V State of

Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 also observed as under:-

Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.

The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between 8 crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence. 9.2 The happening of an accident is an unforeseen incident but it

cannot be a ground to let off the offender. The accident may render

the entire family of the deceased in state of destitution. The Supreme

Court in Dalbir Singh guarded against leniency in relation to the

drivers found guilty of rash driving and observed as under:-

When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 21 16:16:47 particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolic.

Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion....... He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.

In State of Karnataka V Muralidhar, (2009) 4 SCC 463 the

respondent caused fatal accident. The Trial Court sentenced the

respondent to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with

fine for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC. The appeal

was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The High Court waived

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 22 16:16:47 custodial sentence and only fine was imposed. The Supreme Court

referred to the principles related with the offence punishable under

section 304A IPC as also the problems associated with the road

traffic injuries and found absolutely no reason due to which the High

Court waived the custodial sentence awarded to the respondent. The

impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and that of the

Trial Court was restored. The Supreme Court in Abdul Sharif V

State of Haryana, SLA (Criminal) No 13513 of 2016 decided on

21.09.2016 also observed that section 304A IPC should be revisited

so that higher punishment can be provided. The punishment provided

under section 304A IPC is absolutely inadequate. The Supreme Court

in State of Punjab V Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182 also

observed as under:-

Before parting with the case we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the "Emperors of all they survey". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as "larger than life". In such obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the lawmakers should scrutinise, relook and revisit the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 23 16:16:47 sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC. We say so with immense anguish.

9.3 The present FIR pertains to the year 2009 and the petitioner is

facing the legal and judicial proceedings arising of the said FIR since

then. The petitioner is stated to be a first time offender and his

antecedents are clear. The petitioner belongs to lower strata of the

society. The petitioner is stated to be the sole bread earner of his

family which also comprises of his old-aged parents. The legal heirs

of the deceased have already received suitable compensation. The

petitioner has undertaken to reform himself.

9.4 The petitioner due to rash and negligent driving, caused death

of the deceased who was a young man at time of the fatal accident.

The untimely death of the deceased must have caused irreparable loss

to his family. One precious human life was lost due to negligent act

of the petitioner. The petitioner was driving a commercial vehicle and

was supposed to appropriate take care towards other vehicles plying

on road particularly light vehicles.

9.5 After considering all facts, the ends of the justice would be

achieved if the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence

punishable under section 304A IPC is reduced to simple

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 24 16:16:47 imprisonment for a period of six months and the remaining sentence

awarded vide order on sentence dated 15.07.2016 is maintained. The

petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court on 20.11.2023

at 2:30 PM to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

10. Copy of this judgment be supplied to the petitioner and be also

send to the concerned trial court for information.

11. The present petition along with pending applications, if any, is

decided accordingly and stands disposed of.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 3, 2023 SK/AM

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:03.11.2023 CRL.REV.P. 296/2017 Page 25 16:16:47