Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 May, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988CRILJ1, 1987(2)WLN402
ORDER Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. Atom Bomb v. Automobile Bomb. Nagasaki lost 35,000 to 40,000 lives on account of Atom explosion. Hiroshima 70,000 which in 1945 it resulted in surrender of Japan axis power to Allies.
2. Automobile Bomb, more dangerous than Atom now, when 40,000 Bhutanis' have been crushed and killed by Automobile invasion leaving 175000 injured-crippled, in 210000 reported accidents, in India in 1986. One can expect at least four times unreported accidents in India in country side, as primarily village people believe in Ignorance, Blind dogmas of Fatalism and keeps World record into tolerating injustice, exploitation, injuries and aggression, may be Automobile or Atom.
3. The automobile Invasion therefore goes on increasing in Geometrical proportion, whereas preventive and punitive measures to check it grows in Arithmetical proportions as per Mathus's theory in Economics.
4. My deduction is "one year mandatory minimum imprisonment." recommendation for churning process of Legislative cum Judicial debate. It should be accompanied by fine of Rs. 15000/- to be paid as compensation to deceased legal representatives, without prejudice to civil claim.
5. Bhutani is 1974 casualty when the automobile Invasion claimed below 15000 such Bhutanis, in India.
6. Now let me come to Bhutani's narration proper, hi traditional manner, after above untraditional preface:
7. A precious human life of a young Engineer was lost on account of the accident when the truck struck an Auto-rickshaw and then overrun the injured who fell out of the auto-rickshaw and died in Kota on 11th July, 1974. The deceased was none else but Umesh Chand Bhutani.
8. The sentence under Section 304A which has been imposed in this case is one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-. Yet even after concurrent finding of the two courts that Bhutani's death occurred on account of the accident which was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver Amar Lal, the accused has filed this revision petition for holding that he is innocent and claiming acquittal. Of course this is not prejudging the matter, but deduction at the conclusion of arguments, after taking mental decision and not before.
9. Mr. Biri Singh, pointed out that the mistake was of the auto-rickshaw driver and not of the truck driver and Amar Lal was the truck driver, and therefore the truck driver cannot be punished simply because he was driver of the heavy vehicle a truck in comparison to auto-rickshaw. He has taken me through the relevant record in order to support the submission made by him.
10. Mr. Shrimal and Mr. Purohit, Public Prosecutors have vehemently opposed the revision petition.
11. In the instant case it is true that some of the witnesses who happened to be the employees of the truck owner or the labourers boarding the truck, have tried to oblige the truck driver by admitting the accident but disowning the responsibility of the driver. This is not unusual, because the economic dependence of these persons on the truck owner, whose driver's conviction and ultimately pecuniary responsibility in a civil case may bring financial serious liability to the truck owner and the criminal liability on the driver and it overrides the respect for truth.
12. It is clear from the record that the truck driver not only struck the auto-rickshaw, by going towards it rashly and negligently but when Bhutani fell down, the young Engineer was overrun by the wheel of the truck and his body could be taken out only when later on the truck was moved in reverse side. It is significant that Shri Mahesh Chandra Mathur who appeared on behalf of the prosecution and who was autorickshaw driver, has given a graphic description of the accident. The fact that he himself was injured and rushed to the police station and filed the FIR is not in dispute. The FIR filed by him is corroborated by statements and the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence, which all prove rashness and negligence of the petitioner truck driver.
13. Mr. Singh's comment that Mr. Mathur should have been made an accused, would have received serious consideration by me, if the truck driver would have filed a complaint immediately to the police, after the accident mentioning all which is now being mentioned by Mr. Biri Singh that it was the auto-rickshaw driver who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and who was responsible for the accident. The site inspection note which has been proved also corroborates the prosecution case. Mr. Mathur's evidence has also been corroborated by the circumstances which have emerged from the record and the basic fact remains that the truck struck the auto-rickshaw resulting in the passengers including deceased falling from the auto-rickshaw, and then the truck overrun the body of the young Engineer deceased who was crushed under the wheels of the truck. The fact that the deceased was crushed under the wheel of the truck is even corroborated by the statement of the hostile witnesses who in their cross-examination admitted that in (sic) the police they had said that the front wheel of the truck ran over the body of the deceased, who fell down from the auto-rickshaw on account of the impact of the accident.
14. Both the lower courts have discussed the evidence in great detail and since I am in agreement with the same it is not necessary to repeat the entire process again. It may be added here that the report of the truck which was inspected by the Mechanical Inspector, further shows that the speedometer was not in working order as there was no chain connecting it and the hand brake : was also not in working order. These factors further prove negligence because a vehicle whose Speedometer is not in order is a very serious hazard to the public, as the driver would never know with what speed he is driving. It would be a danger to the pedestrians or the people coming or the other vehicles and the traffic in general. The lower court forgot to even consider this aspect of the case.
15. These facts clearly show that there is no serious infirmity requiring interference in revision against conviction recorded by both the lower courts.
16. So far as sentence is concerned, the two judgments of the Apex court which have been referred to by the prosecution and which are well known by now, namely Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab where Krishna Iyer J. speaking for the court observed that there should be no compassion to be shown when a precious life is lost by rash and negligent driving. Even the sentence of two years was not reduced although it is maximum. The Hon'ble Judges in para 3 observed that it scarcely lies in the mouth of the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers, Quoting Lord Greene M. R. Para 3 reads as under:
3. This, however, does not excuse the accused from his rash driving of a 'blind Leviathan in berserk locomotion'. If we may adapt the words of Lord Greene M. R. : 'It scarcely lies in the mouth of the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers'. Rashness and negligence, are relative concepts, not absolute abstractions. In our current conditions, the law under Section 304A IPC and under the rubric of negligence, must have due regard to the fatal frequency of rash driving of heavy duty vehicles and of speeding menaces. Thus, viewed, it is fair to apply the rule of res ipsa loquitur, of course, with care. Conventional defences, except under compelling evidence, must break down before the pragmatic court and must be given short-shrift. Looked at from this angle, we are convinced that the present case deserves no consideration on the question of conviction.
Then the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex court clinched the issue of sentence by saying "when a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion can be shown."
17. An appeal was made to the conscience of the Hon'ble Judges on the ground that the truck driver was maintaining a large family and the owner of the truck has left his family on the road but it failed to move Iyer who in an unmistakable terms refused to show any compassion on the ground that precious life has been lost and no compassion is required to be shown.
18. The latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in this very year of 1987 State of Karnataka v. Krishna (1987) 1 SC J 474 : 1987 Cri LJ 776 is an eye opener where their Lordships were persuaded to pass strictures not only against the Magistrate but against the High Court for showing undue sympathy by sentencing to fine only under Section 304A, IPC and observed consideration of such undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system.
19. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna @ Raju (1987) 1 SC J 474 : 1987 Cri LJ 776 Hon'ble Justice A. P. Sen and Hon'ble Justice Natarajan passed stricture not only against the Magistrate but the High Court. The relevant warning given by the Apex court may be noticed in the following words:
The utter disregard shown by the Magistrate to the nature of the offences particularly the one under Section 304A, IPC and the sentences provided for them under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, by imposing what may be termed as "flea-bite" sentences on the respondent, should have spurred the High Court to not only pass appropriate strictures against the Magistrate but also to set right matters by enhancing the sentence at least for the conviction under Section 304A, IPC to a conscionable level in exercise of its powers under Section 377, Cr. P.C. The reasons given by the High Court are really non-existent as well as irrelevant ones. It is not as if the respondent has been charged or convicted for a grave offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life and his fate had remained in suspense for a long time and as a consequence thereof, he had undergone mental agony and torment for a long period of time. Here was a case where the respondent had not only driven his bus in a reckless manner and caused the death of one person and injuries to another but he had also attempted to escape prosecution by failing to report the accident to the police authorities. Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system.
20. The Supreme Court interfered under Art 136 and enhanced the sentence to imprisonment from fine simplicity even when the High Court has refused to interfere.
21. The earlier judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer and Singhal J. in Ratan Singh's case is one, where the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the sentence of two years RI awarded to truck driver, mentioning that when a life has been lost and the circumstances of the driving are harsh, no compassion can be shown.
22. It would thus be seen that by showing undue sympathy or misplaced leniency in the matter of sentence, a stage has come when not only the Magistrate but even the judgments of the High Court have shakened the confidence of the people in the efficacy of/criminal judicial system .
23. I am therefore of the view that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court not only once, but repeatdly emphasising that when a precious life has been lost the consideration of sympathy or leniency are not only misplaced but shakes the public confidence in the efficacy of criminal jurisprudence; must be taken to its logical conclusion. The frequency of accident and the ever increasing number in the form of a flood of automobile invasion in the towns and city and on the outskirt of the small villages and dhanis, where the National-High ways or the State High ways pass; should now put the Legislators on RED ALERT or thinking on the question of minimum mandatory sentence of jail under Section 304A, IPC with fine of Rs. 15000/- to be paid as compensation.
24. The point whether a minimum sentence is needed in such cases should engage their attention because as has been done in the case of Karnataka (1987 Cri LJ 776)(SC) where the Magistrate passed a sentence of fine and the High Court confirmed it reluctantly by saying that in matters of sentence there should be no interference, the Supreme Court termed it flea-bite sentence. It would now show that offence under Section 304A are treated as very lightly by judiciary and virtually the offence of losing precious life by rash and negligent driving is being protected and provided impunity, by sentence of fine or short sentence of jail.
25. The sentence of two years which was provided by the Legislature at a time the number of accidents was very meagre and the civilization has not come to automisation and automobiles running was not so frequent requires reconsideration by the Legislatures.
26. The latest statistical data furnished by various organisations like World Health Organisation, show as per the report of Raj Chegappa (Published in India Today Hindi dt. 15 May, 1987 at page 71) that the fatal accidents have increased in geometrical proportion and the number of death has gone up to 40,000 during last year whereas the number of deaths in such road accident was 17,778 in 1976. Injured has gone up from 82,547 in 1976 to 1,75,000 in 1986, and similarly the number of accident which were 1,24,662 in 1976 have increased 2,10,000 in 1986 showing an alarming situation. The report says that these accidents are 30 times more than the number of such accidents in 'other developing countries of the World. Total persons killed in India on account of automobile accident on road is two and half per cent of the total death rate which again should be an eye opener to the all concerned. Only 24,600 persons died in 1980 and now as mentioned above the number has gone up to 40,000. This all shows that the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary all have to become alive to the warning of what justice Holmes says as felt necessities of times and therefore the minimum mandatory punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment in fatal accident should be provided by the Legislature, in addition to the provision for increase of sentence under Section 304A IPC from two years to 5 years. This is "writing on the Walls" too patent social need and if we ignore it, we can do so at our own peril.
27. I am of the opinion that when the Legislative thinking in the matter of sentencing is now having a mature and second thought in the cases where deaths are caused, in the nature of dowry deaths or offences which are known as economic offences and other crimes like rape and similar matters, this branch of law where precious lives are lost on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles also requires rethinking. It has become so frequent, that every morning hardly any newspaper of the country is without the black spot and the black news of some serious accident taking up the precious life here and there and throughout the country they can be counted if not in thousands at least hundreds every day.
28. The Government machinery also should be required to have a follow-up action in such matters because even after the accidents are noticed and challans are filed the vehicle drivers, continue to ply the vehicles. After it has been found that the vehicle was defective mechanically, when it was being driven, as in the present case, where even the speedometer was not functioning and the hand brake was not functioning, no steps are taken to either cancel the registration or to take any other administrative action.
29. The indifference, lethargy and callous negligence of the authorities who are supposed to monitor the proper functioning of the automobiles in this country is aggravating and if I may say so abeting the flood of accidents, in the same way as the misplaced leniency shown by the judicial courts and the undue sympathy expressed, crushing again judicially the corpse or the dead bodies, and the accident victims, as has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Karnataka case (1987 Cri LJ 776)
30. In my opinion the Karnataka case of Krishna should be an eye opener to all and the legislators as well as the judicial courts, the Executive machinery, the administrative functionaries of the State controlling, supervising monitoring and responsible for granting, rejecting the licences, the licences of the vehicles, or the driving, should take special care, have special cells to monitor such cases. Each accident should result in prompt action for prohibiting such rash and negligent driving for preventing such defective vehicles having mechanical defects from plying and becoming the dead bulldozers for the precious life of the passengers on the roads.
31. In the present case a young engineer who was yet to develop and serve the country, and the society including his family, lost his precious life, while he was travelling in auto-rickshaw, when the truck came and dashed. Even when he fell out he could not be saved from the wheels of the truck where he breathed his last. In such circumstances such cases being too frequent and too many, the above observations of this Court deserve, consideration by the Executive and Judicial and Administrative wings, equally in proportion to the importance which is being attached to the human lives and to avoid the danger and hazards of automobiles increase traffic. I am therefore unable to reduce the sentence of one year R.I. as it would be abetment of offence by judiciary.
32. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the all concerned including Director of Transport Motor Vehicles and the Chief Secretary of the State, Director General of Police also who should circulate it in the traffic wing and the officers concerned.