Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of M.P. vs Omi Alias Om Prakash on 4 July, 2014
ÊI 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1368 OF 2014
(@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 1505/2011)
STATE OF M.P. APPELLANT
VERSUS
OMI @ OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
A young girl, namely, Preeti, aged about 8 years, before could see the light of youth and the blossom of life, breathed her last, being crushed by a bus rashly and negligently driven by the respondent on 1.10.1994 about 2.00 p.m. The respondent faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra in Criminal Case No. 1675 of 2004, who by judgment and order dated 27.04.2005 found him guilty and convicted him to suffer rigoro us imprisonment for a period of two years.
On an appeal being preferred, the Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal No. 115/2005, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by affirmed the judgment of the trial court vide judgment and Naveen Kumar Date: 2014.07.12 13:01:20 IST Reason: order dated 24.5.2005.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, t he 2 respondent preferred Criminal Revision No. 377/2005 and the learned Single Judge opined as follows:
"From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower reappreciation of evidence. Hence, so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below is maintained."
While maintaining the judgment and conviction, the High Court reduced the sentence of the respondent to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.10,000/-.
We have heard Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. V. Mohana, learned counsel for the respondent. The exposition of the factual matrix is not necessary. Suffice it to say that the respondent was rash and negligent and that caused the accident taking away the life of a young girl.
In the case of Guru Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa Vs. State of Karnataka1, this Court, while repelling the submission advanced on behalf of the accused-Appellant for reduction of sentence from six months to the period already 1 (2012) 8 SCC 734 3 undergone and enhancement of fine, referred to the authorities in State of Karnataka v. Krishna2, Sevaka Perumal V. State of T.N.3, Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil V. State of Gujarat4, Dalbir Singh V. State of Haryana5 and other authorities and opined as follows:
"32. We may note with profit that an appropriate punishment works as an eye-opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like "flies to the wanton boys". They totally forget that the lives of many are in their hands, and the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an indecent burial by their ash and negligent act.
33. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored........."
In the present case, as we find the High Court has not kept in mind the gravity of crime concept of sentencing and has been guided by notion of undue sympathy. We really fail to fathom in the case of this nature, how can enhancement of fine be the redeeming feature. It can never be. The parents of the victim and the collective at large loudly cry for just punishment to be meted out to the convict and filing of an appeal by the State is a response to such a cry and 2 (1987) 1 SCC 538 3 (1991) 3 SCC 471 4 (1994) 4 SCC 353 5 (2000) 5 SCC 82 4 it is our duty to answer the cry of the collective and not to leave the respondent with a lenient sentence by enhancing the fine. When the crime of present nature are rampant and the human life to some have become as if they are flies to the wanton boys, the adequate sentence is a necessity.
Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the occurrence took place long back and with the efflux of time, things have changed and in the changed scenario, this Court must show leniency. Even if leniency has to be shown, it has to have the concept of proportionality. It cannot function in a vacuum. The learned Magistrate had imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years which have got the stamp of approval of the learned appellate Judge. The High Court by reducing the period to 17 days of custody has, in fact, not done justice to the expectations of the collective. The concept of proportionality of sentence commands that the respondent should undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount as imposed by the High Court shall be restricted to the amount of fine that was originally imposed by the learned Magistrate. If in the meantime the respondent has deposited the fine amount as ordered by the High Court, the differential sum shall be returned to him. In view of the sentence imposed, the respondent shall be 5 taken to custody forthwith to serve the rest of the period of sentence.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment of the High Court as regards the sentence, stands modified.
.........................J. (DIPAK MISRA) .........................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) NEW DELHI JULY 04, 2014 6 ITEM NO.203 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1505/2011 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/01/2009 in CRLA 377/2005,13/01/2009 passed by the High Court Of M.P At Gwalior) STATE OF M.P. Petitioner(s) VERSUS OMI ALIAS OM PRAKASH Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing OT) (For final disposal) Date : 04/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. D. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. V. Mohana ,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed order.
(NAVEEN KUMAR) (RENUKA SADANA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)