VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted and punished for an offence under Sections 379/304-A of the IPC. On 28.9.1995 the petitioner while driving a truck bearing No. DIL 8899 at Brar Square, Delhi hit the scooter bearing No.DEK 3604 and injured the scooter rider who succumbed to the injuries either at the spot or on his way to the hospital. PW-4 Shri Gurubax . Singh was an eye-witness to the accident. He proved that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Considering this statement and other evidence produced by the prosecution the petitioner was convicted. The Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for six months and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and RI for one year and a fine of Rs.4000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. The conviction and the sentence have been upheld by the court of sessions in appeal. The petitioner who seeks revision of the judgement of the court of sessions prays for leniency in sentence. On conviction there are two concurrent findings of fact and both the judgements, of court of metropolitan magistrate and that of the court of sessions, fully justify the conviction. Coming to the question of sentence the petitioner not only prays for leniency but also seeks release on probation under PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958. The nominal roll from the jail shows that the petitioner is 27 years old. The counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has a family which depends upon him entirely.

(2.) The judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State, 2004(1) JCC 634 is cited in this case in support of the plea for release on probation. I have examined this judgment. The principal reasons why the petitioner was released on probation by this Court were that accused was the first offender and that he had suffered the agony of trial lasting for eleven years. The offence in that case was one under Section 448/34 IPC. The present case is, however, entirely different. In this case one person has lost his life on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The petitioner was a driver of a commercial vehicle. He was required to be on the wheels almost whole of the day. If such drivers are excused for being rash, the consequences can be anybody's guess. Such drivers are required to exercise extra caution on their speed and manner of driving particularly when they are driving in a crowded city like Delhi. Further they should be particularly careful about those on two wheelers driving on the same roads for they are vulnerable to serious injuries in case of an accident. The punishment to such offenders should, therefore, have a deterrent effect. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of sentence for such offences committed by drivers of the commercial vehicles and I quote the following from the judgment of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana JT 2000(5) SC 463. 13. 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 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P O 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. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He 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 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. 14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our inability to lean to the benevolent provision of Section 4 of the PO Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ?

(3.) Keeping in view the facts of the case and the advice incorporated in the judgment quoted above, I think that the punishment provided by the Court of the metropolitan magistrate and confirmed by the court of sessions is quite reasonable. No interference of any kind is called for from this Court.