Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shivam Chauhan & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 5 September, 2018
In another case of rash driving of a motor vehicle leading to
similar mishap, albeit leading to death of a human being, this Court in
Crl.M.C. 2759/2018, Shivam Chauhan & Anr. v. The State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) & Ors., by decision rendered on 05.09.2018, declined
to quash the criminal proceedings based on "settlement", observing
thus :-
State Of Punjab vs Saurabh Bakshi on 30 March, 2015
"19. The offence of rash driving of a motor vehicle on a
public road is not directed against any specific individual.
It exposes other users of the road - citizens in general - to
wanton risk to their life, limb or property. The rising
fatalities on public roads bring havoc to the victims, or
their kith or kin, and create additional burden on the State
and the society at large. Untimely loss of a precious
human life not only brings immeasurable pain and
suffering to the family that is left behind but, at times, loss
of the bread earner resultantly throwing those dependent
on him virtually on the road or at the mercy of doles of the
civil society or State. As observed by the Supreme Court
in State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182,
"(s)uch a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but
of many others around them". Recourse to the remedy of
accident claim under the law is no solace. After-all, the
legal process invariably takes time to deliver, such
litigation being long winding and, at times, uncertain,
particularly in cases where there is absence of valid
insurance cover against third party risk. If the victim
somehow survives with injuries, the trauma or aftermath of
hurt is also not fully compensatable in terms of money.
Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh & Ors on 22 April, 2014
21. Unlike certain other jurisdictions, our jurisprudence
does not adopt the policy of Islamic law principle of
"blood money" (Diyat) as the answer to every
wrongdoing. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has
ruled that in striking the balance to take care of the "cry of
the society" in grave crimes, "(m)oney cannot be the
oasis" [Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7 SCC
323]. Against the reality that number of such cases of rash
or negligent acts causing mayhem like death or grievous
hurt (or permanent disability) have only been escalating
over the years, allowing a lid to be put on the criminal
prosecution on account of "settlement" into which the
victim is persuaded to enter, in his or her anxiety, to
receive some recompense, would erode the policy of the
court to maintain the "deterrent element", such latitude
being a result of "misplaced sympathy", having the
potency to convey the undesirable impression that driving
can be permitted to be a matter of frivolous "frolic".