Delhi District Court
Niraj Kumar S/O Sh. Gopal Prashad vs The State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 25 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI. CA No.02/16 Niraj Kumar s/o Sh. Gopal Prashad, R/o C/O Virender Kumar, 127/9, 3rd Floor, Gaushala Road, Kishangarh, South-West Delhi. Delhi-110 070. ............ Appellant. Vs. The State of GNCT of Delhi. ............ Respondent. Date of Institution/filing : 12.01.2016. U/s.375 (b) Cr.P.C. Date of reserving judgment/Order : 25.01.2016. Date of pronouncement : 25.01.2016. JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2015 of Ms. Richa Gosain Solanki, Ld. Duty MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide which the appellant has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence u/s. 185 M.V. Act, fine of Rs.100/- under Section 3/181 MV Act, Fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence u/s 32/177 MV Act, fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 146/196 MV Act and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 115/190(2) MV Act.
2. It may be noted here that the appellant has been CA No. 02/16 Page 1 of 5 convicted on his pleading guilty to the aforesaid offences. He has already deposited the fine imposed upon him.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant does not assail his conviction but is aggrieved only by the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. He submits that the appellant is a first time offender with clean past antecedents and hence he may be spared of the sentence of imprisonment. He further submitted that the appellant is a married person having two minor children and ailing mother to look after and is the sole bread earner of his family. He further submitted that the imprisonment for fifteen days would leave an indelible scar upon the life of the appellant and his further career would be severely jeopardized. According to him, the appellant is a law abiding citizen and has learnt a good deal of lesson on having been prosecuted in this case and by payment of huge fine. He argued that imprisonment of appellant, as ordered by the ld. MM, would not serve any purpose at all as the sentence of fine imposed upon him has shown the desired result. He strongly urged this court to set aside the sentence of imprisonment.
4. Ld. APP submitted that keeping in view the risks involved in drunken driving and the danger it poses to the driver as well as other motorists and pedestrians, the sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. She argued that there is no infirmity in the ld. Magistrate's order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of CA No. 02/16 Page 2 of 5 both the sides and have perused the record.
6. The appellant was found driving a private car in a drunken state on 11.12.2015 at about 20.58 hours. The Breath Analysis Report of the appellant reveals that alcohol content in his blood was found to be 201.5mg./100ml., the permissible limit of which is 30mg./100ml.
7. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant was driving the vehicle i.e. a car in heavily drunken state. It is not possible for a person to drive his vehicle properly and to show quick responses when required, after intake of such huge amount of alcohol. A drunken driver cannot take rational and spontaneous decisions while driving. Excessive consumption of alcohol blurres one's vision and intensely impairs the ability to judge things on the road. A drunken driver risks not only his own life but also that of other motorists as well as the pedestrians.
8. The Supreme Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 observed that:-
"World Health Organization in the Global Status Report on Road Safety has pointed out that speeding and drunk driving are the major contributing factors in road accidents. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the total number of deaths due to road accidents in India every year is now over 1,35,000. NCRB Report also states drunken driving as a major factor for road accidents. Our country has a CA No. 02/16 Page 3 of 5 dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents."
9. Hence it won't be inappropriate to say that a drunken driver is like a suicide bomber, who has set out to kill himself as well as the other road users and thus deserves a very stern sentence which should have a deterrent effect and discourage everyone from driving after alcohol intake. A stern sentence to these offenders would go a long way in making the roads safer, thereby saving precious human lives. The menace of drunken driving has assumed alarming proportions and one of the ways to curb it is by imposing severe sentence on such offenders.
10. In the instant case, there would have certainly been a horrible tragedy, if the appellant was not stopped by the traffic police officials.
11. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is, in no way, harsh or unwarranted. However, having regard to the submissions made by ld. counsel for the appellant, the period of sentence of imprisonment is reduced from fifteen days to five days.
12. The impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal stands allowed partly.
13. Copy of judgment be supplied to appellant/convict.
14. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room. Trial CA No. 02/16 Page 4 of 5 Court Record be sent back forthwith alongwith copy of today's judgment.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 25.01.2016. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CA No. 02/16 Page 5 of 5