Delhi District Court
Sumer Singh vs . State Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 7 July, 2018
Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018
IN THE COURT OF Dr. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA:
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI [PC ACT]:
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018
Sumer Singh
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o VPOPadmara Khurd,
Distt. Alwar
Rajasthan ....Appellant
Versus
State of N.C.T of Delhi .....Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.07.2018 Date of conclusion of arguments : 07.07.2018 Date of Order : 07.07.2018 JUDGMENT :
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order on sentence dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Ld. MM, Dwarka Page No.1/8 Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018 Courts, New Delhi.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for 03 days with fine of Rs.11,000/.
3. I have perused the appeal and the impugned judgment and order. Admittedly the convict was driving a Goods Vehicle under the influence of alcohol and on a Breath Alcohol Analysis Test, the alcohol content in his blood was as high as 207 MG/100 ML.
4. The impugned judgment / sentence is being challenged firstly on the ground that the convict had been forced by the Ld MM to plead guilty and that the Ld. MM did not explain him that he had a right of trial and, therefore, the contention is that grave prejudice has Page No.2/8 Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018 been caused to the convict. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel Sh. A.K.Bali that though the provisions of section 375 Cr.PC under which the appeal has been filed do not allow him to challenge the order of conviction, his submission is that once the accused had been forced to plead guilty, the said plea should not be considered as valid in the eyes of law.
5. In the alternative, it has been prayed by him that atleast the sentence imposed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate upon the convict be set aside and that leniency be shown in this regard. He has further submitted that accused has already paid the entire fine amount imposed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and his further submission is that though accused was not taken to any government hospital. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that appellant is a first time offender and that he is the sole bread earning member of his family.
Page No.3/8
Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018
6. It is, thus, the prayer that the simple imprisonment imposed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate upon the convict be set aside and that he may not be made to suffer the company of hard core criminals in the jail.
7. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State had submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant as he had absolutely no right to drive under drunken condition and to place the lives of innocent road users at risk. He has submitted that drunken driving is a menace to society at large and many people have lost their precious lives on roads because of such driving. He has thus submitted that the sentenced imposed by the Ld Magistrate i.e simple imprisonment for 03 days is justified in the facts of the present case and therefore, has submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence require no interference.
Page No.4/8
Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the ld. Counsels. The present appeal has been filed u/s 375 (b) Cr.P.C which makes it clear that no appeal is to be entertained on a conviction based on a plea of guilt except to the extent or legality of the sentence. The assertion of the appellant that in the present case he was forced to plead guilty by the Ld. MM is to be outrightly rejected for it is completely illogical to accept that a Judicial Officer will have any interest whatsoever in forcing a person to plead guilty. The submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant that the present is a fit case where the appellant should also be heard against the order of conviction is therefore to be rejected.
9. Coming to the legality of the impugned sentence, dealing with the issue of sentencing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court a case titled and reported as Karamjeet Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (2001) Page No.5/8 Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018 9SCC 161 has made the following observations:
Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other.
10. The aforementioned judicial dicta therefore makes it clear that the sole purpose of punishing an offender is not retribution alone and that the courts while sentencing an offender have to balance the interest of an individual and the concerns of the society. In the present case, it has been rightly contended by Ld. APP for State that drunken driving has become a huge menace to the society at large and that in Page No.6/8 Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018 such cases simply admonishing an accused will not serve the concerns of the society at all. Present is a case where the appellant has been convicted for driving a commercial vehicle under the influence of alcohol at night. He has also been found guilty of not carrying his important documents of the vehicle with him. The only mitigating circumstance in the present case is that the accused has no previous antecedents and this is the first time that he had been found guilty of having committed an offence.
11. Keeping in view the concerns of the society and taking into consideration that the accused has no previous antecedents and he has a family look after and that, therefore, a loss of 03 earning days would unjustly burden the family of the accused, the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby reduced to Till Rising of the Court (TRC). Page No.7/8
Sumer Singh Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 214/2018
12. At this stage Ld. Counsel for the appellant and the appellant in person states that they do not wish to challenge this order and that the appellant is wishing to surrender immediately.
13. In view thereof, let appellant be taken into custody to serve the sentence of TRC.
14. Copy of this order be sent to Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka for purposes of record. Copy of this order be supplied to convict. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court. VIJAY Digitally signed by
VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
KUMAR
On the 07.07.2018 DAHIYA
Date: 2018.07.10
10:38:51 +0530
(Dr. V.K. DAHIYA)
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (P.C. ACT)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Page No.8/8