Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinay Ratan. on 8 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST:KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
FIR No. 370/05
PS: New Ashok Nagar
U/s 279/337 IPC
STATE Vs. Vinay Ratan.
JUDGMENT
A Unique ID No. of the 02400RO069752006 case B Date of commission of offence. 18.08.2005 C Name of the Smt Manju Sharma W/o Sh. U.C Sharma complainant D Name of the accused Vinay Rattan Sardana S/o Prem Rattan & his parentage and Sardana R/o G1001 Neel Padam Kung, address Vaishali PS Indirapuram, Ghazaibad UP E Offence complained of 279/337 IPC F Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty GOrder Reserved on 31.03.2015 H Final Order Convicted I Date of such order 8.04.2015.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. ALLEGATIONS The story of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2005 at about 6:20 PM near Sarpanch Chowk Police Picket, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, falling State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No1 of 25 within the jurisdiction of Police Station New Ashok Nagar, accused Vinay Ratan Sardana was driving car bearing registration number DL 1TP3093 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner, the car hit one person namely Manju Sharma (Complainant), due to which the complainant received simple injuries. Thus, accused Vinay Ratan Sardana is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC.
2. FIR On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR bearing number 370/05 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station New Ashok Nagar on 18.08.2005
3. NOTICE After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 21.01.2006.
The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the chargesheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused Vinay Rattan Sardana and read out to the said accused person, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 28.06.2006.
4. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
(a) To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No2 of 25 ingredients are as follows: i. That the accident actually took place. ii. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
iii. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
(b) These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
(c) Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No3 of 25 harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash' as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and "
negligence " held as follows:
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowledge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
The court would also like to refer to a recent judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India elaborating further the requirements of section 304A of IPC. Quoting from Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2007 A.I.R. (SC) 1064.
"Section 304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No4 of 25 conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
As noted above, " Rashness " consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses of which 8 witnesses have been examined. In the present case, only eye witness to the accident is victim Manju Sharma and she has been examined by the prosecution as PW3
6. Depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are as under: i. PW-1 HC Mahavir Singh deposed that he was working as Duty Officer on 18 August 2005 and on the rukka State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No5 of 25 brought by Constable Basant, and sent by HC Krishan Pal he recorded FIR bearing number 370/05 Ex.PW1/A, and made an endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel's, however nothing material is found in his crossexamination. ii. PW-2 Ct. Basant Joshi deposed that on 18 August 2005 he was posted at New Ashok Nagar as Constable and he was on patrolling duty along with HC Krishan Pal. HC Krishan Pal received a wireless message regarding accident at police picket, Sarpanch Chowk, New Ashok Nagar and both of them reached the spot where HC Prem Pal met them, who was on picket duty. At the spot complainant Manju Sharma also met them and stated that she had received injuries because of rash and negligent driving of Santro Car by the accused. In the meanwhile PCR also came at the spot and the injured was taken to LBS Hospital. This witness remained at the spot along with the accused and the offending vehicle. Later, HC Krishan Pal came back to the spot along with the complainant and handed over the rukka for registration of the case. This witness went to the police station and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to the investigating officer who prepared site plan and seized the offending vehicle vide State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No6 of 25 memo Ex.PW2/A. Investigating officer also seized the driving license of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/C and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/E. The witness also correctly identified the accused during evidence.
The said witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
iii. PW3 Smt. Manju Sharma is the prime witness as she is the complainant, victim and the sole eyewitness to the accident. She testified that she is resident of NOIDA and that on 18 August 2005 at about 6 - 6:30 PM, she left her house to purchase some vegetables. She reached Ashok Nagar, where a Santro Car bearing number 3093 came from NOIDA side at very high speed, being driven in rash and negligent manner, and it hit her because of which she fell down and sustained injuries on the left side of her body from her head to ankle. She further testified that she became unconscious at that time and was taken to LBS Hospital by the police where her statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded. She also deposed that the site plan was prepared at her instance and she correctly identified the accused in the court.
The said witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No7 of 25 Counsel.
iv. PW4 Dr.M.N.Singh, Radiologist, LBS Hospital deposed that on 18 August 2005, he examined xray plate number 2316 and 2317 of Manju Sharma, but no bone injury was found in the same.
The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel. v. PW5 Sh. Taslimuddin Sidiqui deposed that on 19 August 2005 he mechanically inspected Santro Car bearing registration number DL1TP3093 on the request of HC Krishan Pal and his report regarding inspection is Ex.PW5/A. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel. vi. PW6 Dr. R.N.Das, Medical Superintendent, deposed that on 18 August 2005 he was working as CMO in LBS Hospital, and he examined Manju Sharma brought by HC Ram Nath of PCR at around 7:20 PM with alleged history of road traffic accident. He prepared MLC No. 7863 in his own handwriting Ex.PW6/A and noted down the injuries received by the patient.
This witness was cross examined by learned counsel for the accused, in which he admitted that the injuries on the person of the patient could also occur due to fall.
vii. PW7 ASI Krishan Lal, is investigating officer of the present case. He deposed that on 18 August 2005 he State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No8 of 25 received wireless message w.r.t DD No.23 A, regarding accident. He reached the spot along with Constable Basant Joshi, where he found one Santro Car bearing registration number DL1TP3093. HC Prem Pal was also present there along with the driver of the vehicle and the injured lady had already been taken to LBS Hospital by PCR van. He left the Constable at the spot and went to the hospital where he obtain the MLC of the injured lady and also recorded her statement Ex.PW3/A. He along with the lady came back to the spot, where he prepared site plan Ex.PW7/A at the instance of the injured and sent the rukka Ex.PW7/B through the Constable for registration of FIR. He seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW 2/A; driving licence of the accused and other documents vide memos Ex.PW2/B&C and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/E. On the next day he got the car mechanically inspected by moving application Ex.PW 7/C. After obtaining opinion as regards the natue of injury, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court The witness also correctly identified the accused during evidence.
The said witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No9 of 25 viii. PW8 HC Prem Pal is the last witness examined by the prosecution. He deposed that on 18 August 2005 he was on duty at police booth, Sarpanch Chowk, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. At about 6:30 PM he was present at the police booth, where he came to know about an accident and he immediately rushed to the spot where he found a lady namely Manju Sharma in injured condition and a Santro Car bearing number DL1TP3093 with its driver. PCR as well as the IO and one Constable reached the spot and the PCR took the injured to hospital. The investigating officer left the Constable at the spot and went to hospital and after some time he came back along with the injured lady to the spot and prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct Basant. The car was seized by the investigating officer in the presence of this witness and the accused person was also arrested before him. The witness correctly identified the accused during his evidence. The said witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
7. Statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
The accused in his statement u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C, which was recorded on 19.03.2015, admitted the following facts: i. That on 18 August 2005 he was driving vehicle bearing number DL1TP3903.
State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No10 of 25 ii. That he was going to his house at Vaishali, Ghazaibad from NOIDA via New Ashok Nagar.
iii. That at about 5:30 - 5:45 PM, he entered New Ashok Nagar from NOIDA, and there a mandi of fruits, vegetables etc was there on the road because of which the major portion of the road was occupied by the hawkers. Thus, the accused admitted his presence at the spot. He also admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident and he also admitted that the injured had received some injuries. The defence that he took was:
i. That the speed of his vehicle was so slow that the pedestrians were moving faster than his car.
ii. That as he was passing from the road he saw some persons gathered on the left side and that a lady was trying to get up, maybe after she had fell down due to slip. He stopped the car in order to help the lady and when he went to the spot, people told him that the lady had slipped and had fallen down and when he asked the lady for any help or assistant, she refused.
iii. That in the meanwhile, police reached at the spot and the police booked him in the present false case.
2. Accused declined to avail the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence.
3. The court heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Defence State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No11 of 25 Counsel Sh. B.K.Sharma and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law. It may be noted here that Ld. Counsel Sh. B.K.Sharma has argued the case very well for his client.
4. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of the sole eyewitness and also the victim namely Manju Sharma. The court shall discuss the ingredients of offence under section 279/337 IPC one by one:
(a) That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
i. The said fact has been admitted by the accused in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated 19 March 2015. He has categorically stated that he was driving the vehicle bearing number DL1TP3903 on 18 August 2005 and was going from NOIDA to Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
ii. The said fact also stands proved from the testimony of complainant and police witnesses, as the accused was apprehended at the spot along with the vehicle and was also arrested at the spot vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D.
(b) That the accident actually took place and that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No12 of 25 i. Complainant has deposed that on 18 August 2005 at about 6 - 6:30 PM, she left her house to purchase some vegetables. She reached Ashok Nagar, where a Santro Car bearing number 3093 came from NOIDA side at very high speed, being driven in rash and negligent manner, and it hit her because of which she fell down and sustained injuries on the left side of her body from her head to ankle. She further testified that she became unconscious at that time and was taken to LBS Hospital by the police where her statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded.
ii. The testimony of the complainant has been challenged by learned counsel for the accused on the ground that the complainant made several contradictions i.e. A. While in the complaint it is stated that the complainant was walking on the side of the road, in her cross examination she stated that she was standing near a vegetable vendor.
• The said difference in the complaint and the testimony of the complainant is not of much relevance, as it is admitted case of the parties that on the date of incident a mandi of fruits, 1 vegetables etc was there on the road.
• Thus the complainant was on the side of the 1 Admitted by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No13 of 25 road, where there were shops of fruits and vegetable vendors.
• Therefore, it does not amount to a contradiction which may affect the testimony of the complainant and render it unbelievable. B. While in the complaint it is nowhere stated that the complainant became unconscious, in her examination in chief the complainant has stated so.
• It is true that the complainant has nowhere stated in the complaint that she had lost her consciousness and the said fact for the first time came before the court in examination in chief.
• However, it too does not affect the testimony of complainant, as the complainant has not stated that she lost her senses to an extent that she was not able to see the driver of the offending vehicle. Even if, the complainant lost her consciousness for some time, that does not mean that her testimony regarding the incident is false.
• It may be noted, that the accused has himself corroborated the testimony of complainant by admitting that he was driving the offending State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No14 of 25 vehicle and by admitting that the complainant had received injuries and that he had also stopped there to help the complainant.
• There is no previous enmity between the complainant and the accused and there is no reason as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the accused. The complainant is admittedly a government servant, as she has stated in her complaint that she is working in Ministry of External Affairs, therefore her medical expenses were to be borne by the government and as such there was no reason to falsely implicate the accused in order to make a claim for the recovery of medical expenses. In accident cases there may be false implication, only for the purpose of making a claim for the medical expenses, however that cannot be the motive or reason for false implication of the accused in the present case.
C. In the complaint it is not stated that from which side the vehicle hit her, but in her cross examination she stated that the vehicle hit her from left side and she sustained injuries on the left side which is not possible.
State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No15 of 25 • The Court does not subscribe to the said
argument of the learned defence counsel, as it is not necessary that when a car hits a person from the left side, the person would fall on his right side. The accidents take place in fraction of seconds and when there is an impact between a heavy vehicle like a car and a pedestrian, the force of impact is such that a person can fall on either side depending upon the circumstances at the spot.
• The present case is not a case where one vehicle has hit the other on the left side, but the damage on the other vehicle was found to be on the right side, rendering the case doubtful. In the present case it is a pedestrian who has been hit by a moving vehicle and as such the laws of physics which apply to collision between two vehicles, do not apply in the same manner in such a collision.
D. That though she stated that the site plan was prepared at her instance, the same is not signed by her. • The site plan Ex.PW7/A is not signed by the complainant for the reason that it is in the form of a statement under section 161 of the Code State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No16 of 25 of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is not required to be signed by the complainant. Rather, if the complainant had signed the same, it would have been hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
iii. The testimony of the complainant has also been challenged by learned counsel for the accused on the ground that there are some contradictions in her statement and that of the IO i.e. A. Complainant stated that she went to home from the hospital, whereas IO stated that he brought the complainant to the spot from the hospital. B. IO stated that the paperwork was done at the police picket in the presence of injured, but injured denied the same.
The said contradictions are minor in nature and they do not affect the testimony of the complainant as such minor contradictions do crop up because human memory is not photographic. The incident is of 2005, but the complainant was examined in 2012 and crossexamined in 2014, thus, the said contradictions can be attributed to loss of memory due to lapse of seven to nine years.
iv. From the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses, it stands establish that the accident took place in which the vehicle being driven by the accused hit the State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No17 of 25 complainant.
v. The last but the most important question is whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused.
A. In this regard the complainant has deposed that the accident took place due to the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
B. Learned defence counsel argued that the complainant has admitted that the spot was crowded and as such it was not possible that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed.
C. The Court does not subscribe to the said argument of the learned defence counsel, because in the opinion of the court, the term 'high speed' is a relative term, which depends upon the circumstances in which a vehicle is being driven. For example, a speed of 20 km/h may not be a highspeed on a National or State Highway, but it can be a very highspeed in a busy market, in front of a school or near a hospital.
D. The speed of the vehicle should depend upon the probability of a person or another vehicle coming in front of it. If the probability of coming of a person or another vehicle, in front of the vehicle is not high, then State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No18 of 25 the vehicle can be driven at fast speed, like on national highways. However if the probability of a person or another vehicle to come in front of the vehicle is high, like near a school or in a busy market, then the vehicle of the speed should be such that it could be stopped before it hits the person or other vehicle. E. In the present case, the accused has himself admitted that a mandi of fruits and vegetables was there on the road and the major portion of the road was occupied by the hawkers, thus the probability of another person coming before the vehicle was quite high. In such a scenario, it was the duty of the accused to drive the vehicle at a very slow speed, so that the vehicle may not hit any person on the road. The accused has failed to discharge that duty as a driver of the vehicle and has been negligent in driving the vehicle at high speed in such crowded area.
F. However, at the same time I would like to point out that it is also the fault of the government authorities, which let the hawkers occupy major portions of the roads in order to sell their products, because it not only causes problem to the drivers on the road, it also causes problem for those innocent buyers who come there to buy fruits and vegetables. In the opinion of the court, State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No19 of 25 the government should not permit hawkers to open shops on roads and the roads should be strictly for vehicular traffic. However, if the government permits hawkers to open their shops on the road on some day of the week, then the government for that day should close the road for vehicular traffic, keeping in view the safety of those innocent buyers who come there to purchase household articles.
5. Therefore, it stands proved that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed and in negligent manner, because of which, the offending vehicle hit the complainant, who suffered minor injuries as opined by PW6. It may be noted that it is not the case of the accused that the complainant had not received injuries. The accused has admitted that the complainant had received injuries, but he had taken the defence that the injuries were caused because she has slipped, however the said defence could not be proved by the accused.
6. Thus all the three ingredients to make out offence under section 279/337 IPC stand proved.
CONCLUSION In the light of the above discussions and judgment, accused Vinay Rattan Sardana is convicted for offence under section 279/337 IPC Put up for submissions on sentence on 20.04.2015 State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No20 of 25 ANNOUNCED ON 8.04.2015.
(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER) ACMM(East)/KKD/ 08.04.2015 Certified that this judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER) ACMM (EAST)/KKD/08.04.2015 State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No21 of 25 IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (East), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 370/05
PS: New Ashok Nagar U/s 279/337 IPC STATE Vs. Vinay Ratan.
A Unique ID No. of the 02400RO069752006 case B Date of commission of offence. 18.08.2005 C Name of the Smt Manju Sharma W/o Sh. U.C Sharma complainant D Name of the accused Vinay Rattan Sardana S/o Prem Rattan & his parentage and Sardana R/o G1001 Neel Padam Kung, address Vaishali PS Indirapuram, Ghazaibad UP E Offence complained of 279/337 IPC F Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty GDate of order 8.04.2015. H Final Order Convicted u/s 279/337 IPC I Date of sentence 20.04.2015. ORDER ON SENTENCE
Convict Vinay Rattan was convicted for offence under section 279/337 IPC on 8.04.2015.
Arguments on sentence were heard at length on behalf of both the parties.
State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No22 of 25 Punishment prescribed by Law: As per section 279 IPC, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term of six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
As per section 337 IPC, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term of six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
Arguments : Ld. Counsel for Convict has submitted that this is the first offence of the Convict person. That the Convict belongs to the Respectable Family of the society and has to take care of old age mother. The convict himself is a senior citizen of 65 years of age and is facing trial for more than ten years without fail. Considerations: At this stage of order on sentence, the court is well aware of the fact that protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence and that it is the duty of this court as that of any other court, to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle.
State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No23 of 25 Thus, the court at this stage is required to give consideration to the facts and circumstance of this case for deciding the just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for offence under section 279/337 IPC, and also consider the aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances in which a crime has been committed as the same are to be delicately balanced on the basis of relevant circumstances in dispassionate manner by this court.
Aggravating circumstances Nil.( No aggravating circumstance) Mitigating circumstances
1. That the Convict Person is facing trial for more than Ten years.
2. That the Convict belongs to respectable class of the society.
3. That the Convict has take care of old age mother to look after.
4. That the Convict is not previously involved in any other offence and this is his first offence.
5. That the Convict has regularly appeared throughout the trial of the case.
6. That the Convict committed the offence alleged in the year 2005 and since then till date he has not committed any other offence till date.
7. That the convict is himself of 65 years of age and a senior citizen. Order on Sentence: In view of the mitigating circumstances, in the opinion of the court it would meet the ends of justice, if Convict is sentenced
1. to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for offence under section 279 IPC State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No24 of 25 (Rupees one thousand for offence under section 279 IPC) in default, Simple Imprisonment for one month and
2. to pay fine of Rs.500 for the offence under section 337 IPC (five hundred only for offence under section 337 IPC) in default, Simple Imprisonment for one month. However, in view of the conviction of the Convict for offences u/s 279/337 IPC the Convict is disqualified as per Section 20 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 from holding any driving license for a period of six months from the day the sentence comes into force.
Copy of order on point of sentence to be provided to the Convict free of cost forth with and a copy of the same be also sent to RTO concerned along with original DL of Convict for compliance.
It is, however, made clear that undergoing sentence in default of payment of fine shall not absolve the Convict of his liability to pay fine as the same shall in such case be recoverable under section 421 of Cr. P.C. Fine paid.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(S. P. S. LALER) ACMM(East)/KKD/20.04.2015 State Vs Vinay Rattan Sardana FIR No.370/05 NAN Page No25 of 25