RAJ PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the petitioner be given the benefit of probation? Reference in this connection was made to Aitha Chander Roa v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1981 (Supp) SCC 17. But then it was a case where there was some element of contributory negligence inasmuch as even the deceased was not beyond fault. However, there is no such element discernible in the present case. 'With respect, it has rightly been held by Bahri J. of his Court in Abdul Hammad vs. State (criminal Revision No. 41 of1990) that "facts of the case have to be seen in order to decide whether probationary benefits should be given or not". In the said case the bus driver by his rash or negligent driviing had caused the death of one person and grievous injuries to another and had also caused the death of an animal. He was not given the benefit of probation. In the present case also the petitioner who gave his age as 30 years in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, drove the bus not only at a great speed but even towards the extreme of the wrong side on a road known for heavy traffic and hit the three wheeler scooter coming from the opposite side resulting in the death of two and griveous injuries to the third. He was thus Death in berserk locomotion. Probation, in such cases cannot just be the passepartout. Such a benefit in such like case will make Delhi roads a roulette with death. True, in some cases uder Section 304 A some High Courts have extended the benefit of probation . But then every case is an island upto itself. In a case like this grant of probation would be a grant of licence to kill. It was submitted that imposition of fine only could also meet the ends of justice. In answer to it, I would feel content to refer to State of Karnataka vs. Krishna AIR 1987 SC 861 wherein on conviction under Section 304-A, the sentence of fine only was imposed by the trial court and the High Court had refused to enhance sentence. The Supreme Court was "constrained" to do what the High Court should have done and enhanced the sentence for the conviction under section 304-A to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default to undergo R.I. for two months. In the said case only one life was lost. I am purposely mentioning this to forestall any "comment that on the point of sentence I took no clue from the judgment coming from no other but the apex court. It was last submitted that the sentence imposed was excessive, especially having regard to the fact that the petitioner was most likely to lose his job with the DTC where he is employed as a driver. He having played with fire, it scarcely lies in his mouth to complain of burnt fingers. To quote the apex court in Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 719;

(2.) When a life has lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion can be shown."

(3.) Here not one but two lives lost and a third was griveously hurt. The petitioner must get his desert. I see no reason to interfere. The revision petition is dismissed.