Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegations, examined 10 witnesses and got a number of documents marked as exhibits P-1 to P-24.

6. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating material brought against him and took the stand that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure and not because of rash and negligent driving. However, he chose not to adduce any evidence.

7. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 187 of the 1988 Act and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced him to pay a certain sum as fine and, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a specific period in respect of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 and Section 338 of the IPC As far as the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC is concerned, the learned Magistrate imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of 45 days.

12. First, we shall deal with the facet of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the vehicle turned turtle due to mechanical failure i.e. non-functioning of the hydraulic system in a proper manner. To appreciate the said submission, we have carefully perused the material brought on record and the analysis made by the courts below. On a careful scrutiny of the same, we find that all the courts have placed reliance on independent witnesses as well as the testimony of PW-10, the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The manner in which the accident occurred due to detachment of the trailer from the tractor and the distance to which the tractor moved vividly reveals that the vehicle in question was driven recklessly at a high speed. The plea of mechanical failure as put forth by the accused was not even suggested to the Inspector. What is sought to be emphasised before this Court is that PW-3 has deposed that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure. The trial court as well as the High Court has not accepted the testimony of PW- 3 as he is only an agriculturist while the other technical experts including the Motor Vehicle Inspector have deposed about the rash and negligent driving. Analysing the evidence in entirety, the learned trial judge as well as the appellate judge has returned the finding as regards the rash and negligent driving. The appellate court, on further scrutiny, has found that the evidence on record clearly shows that the driver has taken the vehicle to the left side of the road and, in the process, he moved away from the main road to the ‘kachcha’ road and thereby the link between the tractor and the trailer got detached. The High Court has opined that the accused has not taken care to see that the speed of the tractor was within limit so that the trailer could not be detached. In our considered view, the analysis of the factual score in this regard cannot be regarded to be perverse and, therefore, not liable to be unsettled by this Court.

13. The next limb of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when he has been acquitted under Section 279 of the IPC, he cannot be punished in respect of the other offences as the allegation of rash and negligent act cannot be treated to have been proven. The aforesaid submission, on a first blush, may look quite attractive, but on a deeper scrutiny of the judgment passed by the appellate court, it melts into total insignificance. The learned appellate judge, after due appreciation of the evidence on record as expected of an appellate court, has come to the conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. After ascribing some reason, he has thought it apposite that a separate sentence should not be imposed under Section 279 of the IPC, and, accordingly, he has set aside the sentence awarded by the trial court. It is apposite to state here that there is a distinction between conviction and sentence. A conviction is the proof of the offence committed by an accused. It is the proof of guilt of the offence. The punishment component is the sentence. In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others[1], a three-Judge Bench of this Court, after referring to Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that every judgment referred to in Section 353 of the Code, shall, inter alia, specify the offence of which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. This Court, while dealing with the power of the High Court under Section 389(1) of the Code, has observed that ordinarily an order of conviction by itself is not capable of execution under the Code, but it is the order of sentence or an order awarding compensation or imposing fine or release on probation which are capable of execution and which, if not suspended, would be required to be executed by the authorities. It has been further stated that in certain situations, the order of conviction can be executable in the sense that it may incur a disqualification. We have referred to the aforesaid authority only to highlight that there is a distinction between a conviction and a sentence. In the instant case, as the judgment of the appellate court would show, the view has been expressed that a separate sentence under Section 279 of the IPC is not necessary and, accordingly, the said sentence has been set aside. The reading of the entire judgment makes it graphically clear that the conviction under Section 279 of the IPC has not been annulled. It is noticeable that the rash and negligent driving by the accused that resulted in the causation of injuries to the persons travelling in the trailer has been proved. There is no cavil that some have been seriously injured and one person who was grievously injured breathed his last. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been acquitted of the offence under Section 279 of the IPC does not deserve acceptance, and, accordingly, we, unhesitatingly, repel the same.

26. From the aforesaid authorities, it is luminous that this Court has expressed its concern on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of commission of offences regard being had to the nature of the offence and demand of the conscience of the society. That apart, the concern has been to impose adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. It is worthy to note that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have been taken into consideration but the said aspect is dependent on the facts of each case. As the trend of authorities would show, the proficiency in professional driving is emphasized upon and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear prevails all around. The negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective. When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious, can have nightmarish effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section 357(3) with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence.