KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point urged in this Criminal Revision is that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment,for a period of three months imposed on the petitioner for the offence under S.304A I.P.C.has no justification.Alternatively it was contended that a more lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence because,the facts of the case would reveal that the motor accident described in this case was only on account of an error of judgment on the part of the petitioner.The learned counsel for the petitioner urged to have a new look at the sentencing policy while dealing with offences involving S.304A I.P.C.

(2.) THE case against the petitioner,in short,is that he drove a jeep so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life,. through Muvattupuzha - Thodupuzha public road,from West to East,during the afternoon of 26 -2 -1981 and the jeep went off the road towards right at the place of occurrence and dashed against a cart which was parked on the extreme south of the road and then the vehicle moved further towards south and ranover one Moideen who was sitting in the Veranda of a house on the road -side.Moideen later succumbed to his injuries.The petitioner did not dispute that he drove the vehicle at the time of accident,nor did he dispute that the jeep dashed against the cart and hit the deceased down.His version was that while he was driving his jeep behind a car,he had to overtake the car which was abruptly stopped in front of him and while overtaking the car,he noticed a bus rushing from the opposite direction;and in order to avoid a head -on -collision with the bus,he had to swerve his vehicle further to his right and then the consequences followed.

(3.) THE Learned counsel contended that when an offence is made punishable with imprisonment or fine,and when discretion is given to the trial court to make the choice and to determine the extent of the sentence,the normal sentence should not be a term of imprisonment.The counsel expressed concern saying that the recent trend,unfortunately,is to pass sentence of imprisonment in such cases,forgetting that no criminal intention can be attributed to the accused for such offences.In the above context,a reference was made to the observation of Beaumont,C.J.in one of the early decisions of the Bombay High Court reported in Emperor v.Khanmahomed(AIR 1937 Bom.96 ).The learned Chief Justice in that case observed thus: "It is not part of the duty of the courts to punish with savage sentences every motorist who has the misfortune to have an accident,which results in a loss of life,even though the accident be due to an error of judgment on the part of the driver.'The circumstances of each case must be considered in imposing sentence.Moreover,one has to remember that driving motorcars has become an essential part of human activities and it is impossible to avoid certain number of accidents." The Last part of the above observation does not appear to have gained preponderant approval from other High Courts.Even if there had been any justification in making the said observation in the decision in that case,it is not consistent with the present line of thinking and it must be remembered that a period of half a century has elapsed between then and now.The highways and other public roads,in the urban and suburban areas as well as village pans have become crammed with fleeing automobiles.Road traffic hazards have reached such a monstrous proportion now in the megalopolises that the incredible difference between the potential for fatal accidents and the actual number of such accidents often appears to explain how faith prevails over reason.The volume and melange of vehicular traffic have grown.Commonest users of the roads in India continue to be the pedestrians which include women and school -going children.Krishna Iyer,J .,in his own style,has described the scene as this,"the callous yet tragic traffic chaos and treacherous unsafely of public transportation -the besetting sin of our highways which arc more like fatal facilities than means of mobility.More people die of road accidents than by most diseases,so much so,the Indian highways arc among the top killers of the country."If drivers of vehicles heavy vehicles or light vehicles get the impression that the worst consequence which visits them on account of rash driving is only that they will have to pay some amount of fine,that impression would considerably dilute the element of deference in them.In the present situation,when vehicular traffic is registering galloping growth,the weakening of deterant element will make the class of drivers inalert to the imperative need to take proper care and circumspection.This is an aspect to be seriously borne in mind by the Magistrates while deciding the quantum of sentence for the offence under S.304A IPC.