CHHABIL DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak dated 20th of February, 1988, holding petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to further undergo RI for six months under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo three months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 20 days under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated 27th of September, 1988.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that on 9th of August, 1988 in the area of village Kharkara on Rohtak-Hissar road, the petitioner was driving his truck No. HYB 941 and since he was driving rashly and negligently he caused death of Smt. Yashwanti. The occurrence was witnessed by Rattan Singh and Nanhi PWs.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records. Maximum sentence provided under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is two years. Whereas it is true and so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that lenient view should not be taken where a negligent driver kills a man on the road and the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act should not be extended to them, it is equally true that the quantum of sentence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To illustrate if a driver who is excessively drunk by his utter carelessness, rash and negligent driving kills under his wheels six persons, the sentence in that case will not be beyond a period of two years. Should it be true and the same sentence awarded to a person who, no doubt, is rash and negligent in driving but not the extent and degree as compared to those as mentioned above and who kills so many persons. In considered view of this Court, whereas it may not be permissible to let off rash and negligent driver under the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, but quantum of sentence would necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, it is admitted position, as has been mentioned by the learned Sessions (Judge) in paragraph 3 that at the relevant time half portion of the road was under repairs and some labourers were actually working on the road and that even as per the prosecution version the truck struck against deceased Yashwanti from the back side. This version of the prosecution has been mentioned by the learned Magistrate and is available at page 19 of the paper book. The petitioner was, no doubt, rash and negligent but the facts as mentioned above, would reduce to some extent rash and negligent driving on his part.