Delhi District Court
State vs . Roshan Lal on 17 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K.AGRAWAL, MM-IV (East)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 405/2000
U/S 279/304-A IPC
PS: Shakarpur
STATE VS. ROSHAN LAL
17.04.2013
Present:- Ld. APP for State.
Convict Roshan with Ld. Counsel.
Arguments on the point of sentencing were addressed from both
sides on the last date. The case is fixed for orders for today.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1.It is argued by Ld. State counsel that considering the nature of offence in which the convict was found guilty of driving his vehicle in a rash and neglient manner, which resulted in death of a lady, no leniency should be shown to the convict and he should be sentenced to period of maximum imprisonment. The punishment should act as a deterrent to other such offenders.
2. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the convict that the convict is a poor person and the sole bread earner of his family which consists of aged parents, wife and two children and if he is sent to jail than the family of convict shall be rendered destitute.
3. He also submits that the convict has a clean record and is not involved in any other case except the present case.
4. Lastly, the Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the convict was about 19-20 years of age at the time of commission of offence and considering the young age of accused, a lenient view be taken against the convict and he may be released on probation. Ld. Counsel has relied on one FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.1 of 20 jdugement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mandrup Vs State of Haryana, 1999 (2) CC Cases HC 248 in support of his contention.
I have heard and duly considered the rival contentions. As far as sentencing guidelines are concerned, in State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 537 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that :
"Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. The Courts should impose a punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It is the nature and gravity of the crime, and not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on social order in many cases may be in reality, a futile exercise."
5. Further in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"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 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders 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. It was further held that "He (the convict) 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 FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.2 of 20 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."
6. It is obvious that benefit of Probation cannot be given to the Convict in this case where an innocent person lost his life due to the callous driving of the accused. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I take a moderate view. The convict Roshan Lal is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to fine of Rs.3000/- for offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The convict is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable u/s 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Benefit of Sec 428 Cr.P.C., if any, be extended to the convict.
Copy of this order be given free of cost to the convict.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court on Dated: 17.04.2013 (A. K. AGRAWAL) MM(East)/KKD/17.04.2013 FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.3 of 20 IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K. AGRAWAL, MM-IV (East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR. No. : 405/2000 PS Shakarpur Offence Complained of : 279/304A IPC Date of commission of Offence : 30.09.2000 Unique Case I.D. No. : 02402R0024822009 Serial No. : 223/10 STATE Vs. ROSHAN LAL Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Inder Raj R/o Village Mathura Pur, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. .........................Accused Raj Singh S/o Late Shankar Lal R/o Mamta Nursery Pontoon Pool Road, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi ................Complainant Date of Institution : 30.01.2001 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of reserving judgment/order : 28.03.2013 Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2013 Final order : CONVICTED Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
7. Briefly stated the story of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. at place Mamta Nursery, Pontoon Bridge Road, School Block, FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.4 of 20 Shakarpur, Delhi, accused Roshan Lal was driving his vehicle i.e. Eicher Tractor bearing No.HRS 8968 (for short "tractor') in a rash and negligent manner. In the process he struck his vehicle against one Sharbati Devi, who was sitting on the cot in front of the nursery, causing her death at the spot itself. The accused driver fled away leaving accidental tractor at the spot. Accordingly an FIR was registered for offences punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC. Accused Roshan was later on arrested in this case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act on 30.01.2001. Cognizance of offence was also taken on the same day.
8. Notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under 279/304-A IPC was served upon the accused on 03.10.2001 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused did not dispute the identity of tractor and cot during trial vide his statement recorded on 05.05.2012, so their production was dispensed later on.
9. During PE, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
10. PW1 is HC Bhopal Singh, Duty Officer, who registered the present FIR.
The copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A.
11. PW2 is Dr.Sarvesh Tondon from Sabzi Mandi Mortuary who conducted the post mortem of deceased Sharbati. The post mortem report is Ex. PW2/A.
12. PW3 is complainant Raj Singh. (There are lot of spelling mistakes in the deposition of this witness however, on bare reading of the same, the meaning and contents thereof can be easily ascertained). He deposed that the incident occurred on 30.09.2000, at about 8.30 p.m., he was standing at the gate of his nursery (plant nursery) alongwith his son Sangram Singh and his mother (deceased Sharbati) was sitting on a cot. At that time, FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.5 of 20 accused came driving a tractor bearing No. HRS 8968 in a very rash and negligent manner and struck against the cot on which his mother was sitting and crushed her. The witness also deposed that accused used to ferry Sand from Yamuna everyday. Police recorded his statement vide Ex. PW3/A and prepared site plan. Eight photographs of accidental spot taken in the presence of this witness are collectively mark A (1-8). The body of deceased was handed over to this witness after post mortem. The witness correctly identified the accused.
13. PW4 is Sangram Singh, son of complainant, whose testimony is on similar lines to that of PW3. However, this witness also deposed that the accident would have been averted, had the driver exercised simple care and precaution. He also deposed that the cot and tractor were seized by IO and the accused was arrested in his presence. He also correctly identified the accused.
14. PW5 is SI Kedar Nath (retired) who conducted the mechanical inspection of tractor.
15. PW6 is Krishan Kumar Verma, photographer, who took the photographs of spot. The photographs were proved by witness as Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex. PW6/A8.
16. PW7 is SI Madan Meena who deposed that on 30.09.2000, on receiving D.D.No. 28/A, he reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Pradeep where he found the tractor bearing no.HRS 8968 in an accidental condition as well as the body of a lady whose head was crushed. He recorded the statement of eye witness Raj Singh (son of deceased) vide Ex.PW3/A and prepared rukka vide Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter, he got FIR registered through Ct. Pradeep. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Raj Singh vide Ex.PW7/B. After registration of FIR, he got the spot photographed. The FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.6 of 20 offending tractor and Cot on which the deceased lady was sitting, were seized vide Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D respectively. He also got the post mortem of deceased conducted. The witness further deposed that on 01.10.2000, he arrested the accused vide Ex.PW7/E. He also got mechanical inspection of tractor conducted vide his application Ex.PW7F and obtained the report vide Ex.PW5/A. He also deposed that public persons had diffused the tyre of tractor. The body of deceased was handed over to her relatives after identification. The witness correctly identified the accused.
17. PW8 is HC Pradeep Kumar who joined investigation along with IO/SI Madan Meena. His testimony is on similar lines to that of PW7 and the same is not being repeated here for the sake of brevity. However, this witness further stated that the personal search of accused was conducted vide Ex.PW8/A. The witness also state that the accused was not having driving license, so challan was also prepared u/s 3/181 M.V.Act. The witness correctly identified the accused.
18. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement of accused under Sec 313 Cr.P.C.
read with 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.05.2012 wherein the accused denied the evidence put to him. He stated that the accident did not take place from his vehicle and when he reached at the spot, there was already crowd gathered at the spot who stopped his vehicle. Police officials were also present and they took him to PS where he was falsely implicated in this case.
19. Accused wanted to lead DE. During DE one witness was produced by accused. DW1 is Het Ram who deposed that he was working as gardener in Pappu Nursery in the year 2000. On 13.09.2000, at about 8.30 p.m., he saw that one old lady was lying dead as she was hit by unknown vehicle and some public persons were gathered there. After fifteen minutes one FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.7 of 20 tractor trolly came from the site of Yamuna and public persons stopped that tractor trolly and after beating driver, they took him to PS. He also stated that accused used to supply sand and fertilizers to the nurseries.
20. During final arguments, the Ld. APP prayed for conviction of the accused on the basis of Prosecution evidence. He argued that the eye witness PW3 & PW4 have proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further the other prosecution witnesses have also supported the case, so he argued that the accused deserved to be convicted.
21. On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the case against the accused was not proved at all. The Defence counsel argued that as per D.D.No.28/A dated 30.09.2000, the tractor which had hit the deceased had run away after committing accident whereas as per testimony of PW7, he found the tractor alongwith dead body at the spot itself, which is a material contradiction. He further argued that the testimony of PW3 was full of errors as some meaningless words were recorded. Further PW3 also stated that the statement of his son Sangram Singh was not recorded and the accused was not arrested in his presence. Further more PW4 Sangram Singh has stated that police did not record his statement and he did not remember the date, time, place and name of police official who recorded his statement. Accordingly, he prayed that accused deserves to be acquitted in view of above discrepancies. Written arguments were also filed by defence counsel. Thereafter final arguments was closed.
22. The accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable u/s 279/304 A IPC. The relevant sections read as under:-
Sec 279 IPC:- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.8 of 20 hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Sec 304 A IPC:- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
So the prosecution is required to prove two things for offence u/s 279 IPC:- (a) Firstly, the accused was the driver of the vehicle in question, and
(b) Secondly, driving of vehicle by accused was in a manner so rash or negligent, so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Furthermore in order to prove offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC, the prosecution in addition to above facts, is also required to prove:- (c) That by doing the aforesaid act in the aforesaid manner, the accused caused death of any person.
23. Having heard arguments of both sides, it is not disputed by the defence that the deceased Sharbati Devi died due to vehicular accident and also the fact that the accused was himself driving the tractor in question. Since the accused has taken the defence that the accident took place from another vehicle other than his tractor, the question before this court is two fold, firstly, whether the accident took place from the vehicle driven by the accused itself or not ; and if yes, secondly, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused or not ?
24. In Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa 1977 AIR 170 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"Three principles of criminal jurisprudence which FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.9 of 20 are well settled are as under:(i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts."
I shall proceed with appreciation of prosecution evidence in the light of the ratio of aforesaid judgment.
25. Submissions of both sides has been duly considered and the evidence on record carefully perused. In the present case, PW1 being the duty officer is a formal witness. PW2 is a doctor who conducted post mortem of deceased and he is also a formal witness. PW3 is son of deceased and PW4 is grand son of deceased. Both these witnesses are eye witnesses of incident and material witnesses. PW5 is Mechanical Inspector and he is also a formal witness. PW6 is photographer who took photographs of accidental spot and he is also a formal witness. PW7 is IO of this case. PW8 is a Police official who joined investigation with IO. The testimony of both these witnesses is corroborative in nature. It is self evident that the prosecution is primarily relying on the testimony of PW3 & PW4 in order to prove its case.
26. As far as evidence is concerned, the testimony of PW3 and PW4 reflects that there is inherent consistency in their deposition. Both these witnesses have correctly stated about the date, time and manner of incident. Their respective testimonies corroborate each other. Both these witnesses have further identified the accused as the driver who committed the alleged accident. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention one important point FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.10 of 20 which is that the accused was previously known to the complainant as he used to ferry send everyday from the Yamuna River as per statement of PW3. This fact rules out any wrongful identification of accused by complainant. No person would falsely implicate any other known person in a case of this nature, without their being any previous animosity or ill will towards that person. It is not the case of the defence that there was previous animosity or ill-will between the parties. Infact in such cases, the family of the victim will try to ensure that the real accused is convicted. PW3 has not even been cross examined on the issue of identity except the fact that PW3 had stated in his cross-examination that the accused was not arrested in his presence which fact is an admitted fact as this witness is not a witness of arrest memo. Infact this further lends credibility to the testimony of PW3 as he has not tried to concoct facts.
27. At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider the defence taken by the accused. It is stated that the testimony of PW3 is full of errors and some meaningless words have been recorded. However, perusal of examination
-in-chief of this witness will show that on bare reading of same, the meaning and contents of his statement is clearly ascertainable without any difficulty. I do not find any force in the submissions of Ld. defence counsel on this issue.
28. Second contention of Ld. defence counsel is that as per D.D.No.28-A dated 30.09.2000, the offending tractor had run away from the spot after committing the accident. Perusal of the statement of PW3 before police vide Ex.PW3/A, reflects that he had even stated to the police that the accused stopped his vehicle some distance away from the spot and thereafter fled away. Infact this witness has not been cross-examined on this point. In this regard, it would be also pertinent to mention that PW7, the IO of this case, has also not been cross-examined by defence counsel. Further even as per prosecution, it is merely stated that the offending FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.11 of 20 vehicle was found near the body of deceased. It is not the case of prosecution that the body of deceased was found beneath the offending vehicle.
29. It has been further contended by the defence counsel that PW4 and PW5 have not stated about the date, place and time when IO recorded their statements in their cross-examination. These appear to be minor discrepancies. In Surender Singh v. State of Haryana (SC) 2006(1) J.T. 645 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"It is a well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."
30. Furthermore, perusal of testimony of PW3 & 4 reflects that both have been examined-in-chief in year 2003 and they were cross-examined by defence pursuant to application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. in the year 2012, which means that both these witnesses were cross examined nine years after giving their examination-in-chief. Further the incident took place in the year 2000 i.e. 12 years earlier than the date of their cross examination. Despite such a long gap, their testimony appears to be reliable and there is no material contradiction which has been extracted by the defence counsel. In fact it is all but natural that the eye witnesses may not remember the entire facts of case after such a long time. This further shows that these witnesses are not tutored witnesses. It has been held in catenas of judgement that when the witnesses are examined after a long gap, there is bound to be some minor discrepancy in their statement. These discrepancies cannot be a ground to acquit the accused, if their testimony is otherwise fully reliable. It was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jeet Pal v. State (Delhi) FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.12 of 20 1997 Cri.L.J. 299 that :
"It was to be borne in mind that the raid was conducted on 14.8.1989, both the witnesses were examined in the trial court on 12.10.1990 and on that date their examination-in- chief remained incomplete. However, examination-in-chief of R.K.Anand (Public Witness 1) and R.N.Maini (Public Witness 2) was resumed on 9.3.1995 and 29.3.1995 respectively. These witnesses were deposing to an incident which occurred 5/6 years back the very fact that there are some minor discrepancies, instead of diminishing the worth of their evidence, gives at a stamp of genuineness. The discrepancies referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are, in my view, miner, insignificant, natural and not material. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and they also do not relate to main substratum of the prosecution case."
31. In Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717 it was observed that :
"There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with
mathematical niceties cannot be expected in
criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence."
FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.13 of 20
32. Further in Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 3544 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant, had this to observe that :
"When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness."
33. Accordingly, in view of the settled proposition of law as stated above, I have no problem in holding that the testimony of both PW3 and PW4 is reliable and trustworthy. As far as testimony of DW1 is concerned, it is hardly of any help to the defence as this witness is not an eye witness of the incident as admitted by him in his testimony. Further this witness also states that the accused was taken to the PS on the same day of incident, whereas the arrest memo on record as well as the testimony of prosecution witnesses prove that the accused was arrested on the next day of incident i.e. 01.10.2000. DW1 also states that in the incident, the FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.14 of 20 Cot on which the deceased lady was sitting was also not broken, which is also an incorrect fact as the photographs of the spot clearly reveal that the cot had badly broken. Obviously the testimony of this witness is not credible and is of no help to the defence. Accordingly, it is sufficiently proved that the accident took place from the tractor of the accused himself.
34. As far as second question regarding the rash and negligent manner by the accused is concerned, both PW3 & 4 have stated the same fact that the accused was driving his vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner. PW4 has gone on to state further that had the driver (accused) exercised simple care and precaution, the accident would not have taken place. However, both these witnesses have not been cross-examined on this point. The Ld. defence counsel argued that as per cross examination of PW3, the accused was driving at a speed of about 20 Km, which shows that the vehicle was being driven at a slow speed and not in a rash and negligent manner. It has been held in various judgments of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that high speed of the vehicle is not ipso facto proof that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. In Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama AIR 1975 SC 1324 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed at which the vehicle was running but other intervening factors as well which led to the accident.
35. In the present case, the offending tractor driven by the accused hit a lady who was sitting on a cot besides a nursery and in the accident, the lady got badly crushed under the wheels of vehicle. It is not the case that the deceased was crossing or moving on the road when the accident had happened. So, if the accused had been driving the vehicle properly, this accident would not have taken place. Apparently, the accused was rash FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.15 of 20 and negligent while driving the vehicle and due to the fast speed of the vehicle, he was unable to control his vehicle, which led to this accident. In this case, even the principle of Res ipsa Loquitor is applicable. As per this principle, in an accident of such nature, the prosecution is merely required to prove the accident and then the onus is on the defence to show that the accused had not been rash and negligent. It has been held in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 745 that:
"There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence."
The manner of accident in this case proves it sufficiently that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the accused himself.
36. Lastly, as per evidence the accused was found driving a "tractor trolly"
carrying sand, on a public road. A tractor trolly being an agricultural vehicle cannot ply on public roads and for that reason even no permit is issued by transport department to such vehicles for plying it on public roads. So, the accused was driving the aforesaid vehicle for a commercial purpose on road, without any legal authority. It is also pertinent to mention here that the accused was also charge sheeted u/s 3/181 M.V. Act for being found driving without driving license. This fact was also deposed by PW8 in his testimony. So, it prima facie appears that the accused was not even having a driving licence. However, since notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. has not been served on accused for offence punishable u/s 3/181 M.V. Act, no judicial opinion is being expressed on this issue. But in such circumstances FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.16 of 20 the accused must bear the consequences of his act.
37. In view of above findings, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Roshan Lal stands convicted for offences punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC.
Ordered Accordingly. Copy of this judgement be given free of cost to convict.
Announced in open court on Dated: 10.04.2013 (A. K. AGRAWAL) MM(East)/KKD/10.04.2013 FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.17 of 20 IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K.AGRAWAL, MM-IV (East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No. 405/2000 U/S 279/304-A IPC PS: Shakarpur STATE VS. ROSHAN LAL 17.04.2013 Present:- Ld. APP for State.
Convict Roshan with Ld. Counsel.
Arguments on the point of sentencing were addressed from both sides on the last date. The case is fixed for orders for today.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. It is argued by Ld. State counsel that considering the nature of offence in which the convict was found guilty of driving his vehicle in a rash and neglient manner, which resulted in death of a lady, no leniency should be shown to the convict and he should be sentenced to period of maximum imprisonment. The punishment should act as a deterrent to other such offenders.
2. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the convict that the convict is a poor person and the sole bread earner of his family which consists of aged parents, wife and two children and if he is sent to jail than the family of convict shall be rendered destitute.
3. He also submits that the convict has a clean record and is not involved in any other case except the present case.
4. Lastly, the Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the convict was about 19-20 years of age at the time of commission of offence and considering the young age of accused, a lenient view be taken against the convict and he may be released on probation. Ld. Counsel has relied on one FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.18 of 20 jdugement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mandrup Vs State of Haryana, 1999 (2) CC Cases HC 248 in support of his contention.
I have heard and duly considered the rival contentions. As far as sentencing guidelines are concerned, in State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 537 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that :
"Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. The Courts should impose a punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It is the nature and gravity of the crime, and not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on social order in many cases may be in reality, a futile exercise."
5. Further in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"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 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders 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. It was further held that "He (the convict) 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 FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.19 of 20 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."
6. It is obvious that benefit of Probation cannot be given to the Convict in this case where an innocent person lost his life due to the callous driving of the accused. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I take a moderate view. The convict Roshan Lal is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to fine of Rs.3000/- for offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The convict is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable u/s 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Benefit of Sec 428 Cr.P.C., if any, be extended to the convict.
Copy of this order be given free of cost to the convict.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court on Dated: 17.04.2013 (A. K. AGRAWAL) MM(East)/KKD/17.04.2013 FIR No. 405/2000 PS Shakarpur State Vs Roshan Lal Page no.20 of 20