POONMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel Shri Sarswat for the appellant accused initially cited two judgments of this Court reported in Nanhe Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) RCD 103 (Raj) and Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) RCD 170 (Raj) and submitted that in this case the accused has remained in jail for seven days and the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC is an old one committed on 22-4-81 i.e. almost 17 years from today, therefore, order of sentence already undergone be passed. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel Shri Sarswat about the latest judgment of this Court in case of Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (3) WLC 319 wherein this Court took the different view of the matter, Mr. Sarswat prayed for time to cite one Division Bench judgment of this Court. Accordingly, time was granted and the matter was kept in the second sitting after recess. Mr. Sarswat pointed out Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr LR (Raj) 495 and submitted that the accused be given benefit of probation or an order of sentence of already undergone be passed.

(2.) At the outset it may be stated that the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Nanhe Khan's case (supra) and Om Prakash's case (supra), the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 84 : (1980 Cri LJ 11) and in case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, 1987 (1) UJ (SC) 354 : (1987 Cri LJ 776) and one more judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Baldevji Bhathiji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1327 : (1979 Cri LJ 1136) were not brought to the notice of the Court. In Baldevji Bhathiji's case (supra), the driver crushed the deceased, who was trying to cross the road and did not make any attempt to save the life of the deceased by swerving to other side when there was a sufficient space. The accused was convicted by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. While upholding the conviction, their Lordships refused to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and also refused to interfere with the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. In turn, their Lordships of the Supreme Court also refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court and refused to grant the benefit of probation to the accused.

(3.) In Ratan Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court came down very heavily and observed that, "Many dangerous drivers plead in Court, with success, that someone else is at fault. In the present case, such a plea was put forward with a realistic touch but rightly rejected by the Courts below". In Ratan Singh's case (supra) the trial Court imposed maximum sentence of two years' R. I. It was argued before the Apex Court that so many years have passed after the commission of the offence, therefore, the sentence be reduced. Their lordships rejected that contention by observing that, "Sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components". The Apex Court made several other observations and recommendations to the State which was in fact adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in Nasru v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr LR (Raj) 488 : (1988 Cri LJ 326). Recently, the Apex Court issued certain directions to the State in a case wherein several school children lost their lives in a motor accident case at Delhi because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.