STATE OF PUNJABversusBALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

                     [2012] 1 S.C.R. 45


                    STATE OF PUNJAB                             A
                             v.
             BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 47-48 of 2012)

                     JANUARY 6, 2012
                                                                B
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

     ss. 304-A, 337 and 279 - Five deaths caused due to rash c
and negligent driving and by colliding of two vehicles -
Sentence - Held: While considering the quantum of sentence
to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by
rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime
considerations should be deterrence - For lessening the high    o
rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous driving
of vehicles, the courts are expected to consider all relevant •
facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence
and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the
gravity of the offeni;;e if the prosecution is able to establish E
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Further,
the criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence u/s
304A as attracting the benevolent provisions of s.4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Order of High Court
reducing the sentence to the period already undergone i.e. F
15 days, set aside - Accused sentenced to six months RI each
with fine - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - s. 4 - Sentence/
Sentencing.

    In a motor accident, caused by the collision between
a bus and a truck due to rash and negligent driving by          G
the drives of both the vehicles, five persons travelling in
the bus lost their lives. The trial court convicted the
accused-drivers u/ss304-A, 337 and 279 IPC and
sentenced each of them to two years rigorous
                            45                                  H
   46       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A imprisonment u/s 304-A and six months rigorous
  imprisonment u/ss 337 and 279 IPC. In the appeal, the
  Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and
  sentence. However, the High Court, in revision while
  confirming the conviction reduced the sentence to the
B period already undergone, which was for 15 days.

        Allowing the appeals filed by the State, the Court

       HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the trial court on
  appreciation of evidence and accepting the version of the
C prosecution witnesses convicted the respondents u/s
  304A IPC. To bring a case of homicide u/s 304A IPC, the
  conditions are: (1) There must be death of the per-son in
  question; (2)the accused must have caused such death;
  and (3) that such act of the accused was rash or negligent
D and that it did not amount to culpable homicide. [para 6-
  7] [50-B; 51-F-G]
       2.1. While considering the quantum of sentence to be
  imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash
E and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime
  considerations should be deterrence. For lessening the
  high rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous
  driving of vehicles, the courts are expected to consider
  all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the
F question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
  commensurate with the gravity of the offence if the
  prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond
  reasonable doubt. Further, the criminal courts cannot
  treat the nature of the offence u/s 304A IPC as attracting
  the benevolent provisions of s.4 of the Probation of
G Offenders Act, 1958. [para 10-11] [52-E-H]

      Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (3) SCR 1000
  = (2000) 5 SCC 82; 8. Nagabhushanam vs. State of
  Kamataka, 2008 (8) SCR 444 =2008 (5) SCC 730 - relied
H on.
  STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALWINDER SINGH AND               47
                        ORS.
     2.2. In the instant case, the reasoning of the High A
Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone, that is, 15 days cannot be
accepted. Merely because the fine amount has been
enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, is also not a sufficient
ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in B
a case where five persons died due to the negligent act
of both the drivers of the bus and the truck. Accordingly,
the order of the High Court is set aside and a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- each is imposed on the accused. [para 12) [53-B- C
DJ
                    Case Law Reference:
     2000 (3) SCR 1000      relied on             para 8
     2008 (8) SCR 444       relied on             para 9    D

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 47-48 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 04.11.2009 of the High E
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Revision Nos.
653 & 655 of 2000.

     Ashok Aggarwal, (Gen. Punjab), Manjusha Wadhwa, R.K.
 Pandey, H.S. Sandhu, Mohit Mudgil, Kuldip Singh for the
 Appellant.                                                 F

     Sudhir Walia, Abhishek Atrey, K.G. Bhagat, Dattareya
 Vyas, Vineet Bhagat for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                            G
     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These appeals are filed against the common final
 judgment and order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the High
 Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal H
     48        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.

 A Revision Petition Nos. 653 and 655 of 2000 for nature of
   offence and quantum of sentence whereby the High Court partly
   allowed the revision petition and reduced the quantum of
   sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
   Amritsar as upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar
 B under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
   (in short 'IPC').

          3. Brief facts:

        (a) On 30.10.1992, one Dhian Singh-the Complainant (PW-
C 3), after attending the last rites of one of his relatives at Village
  Mustabad, Amritsar was returning to Batala along with his
  family members in a Jhang Transport Bus bearing No. PB-02-
  0-9485. The bus was being driven at a very high speed by the
  driver-Respondent No. 1 herein. When the aforesaid bus
D reached the bus stand at Mudhal, at that time, a truck bearing
  No. PB-02-C-9665 which was being driven by Respondent No.
  2 herein was coming from the opposite side at a very high
  speed. Both the drivers were driving their vehicle at a very high
  speed and in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which,
E both the vehicles collided with each other and two passengers,
  namely, Darshan Singh s/o Bela Singh and Banso w/o Ajit
  Singh died at the spot. The other passengers, namely, Sonia,
  Dalbir Singh and Ramandeep were taken to the Civil Hospital
  but later on they succumbed to their injuries.
F
       (b) On the basis of the complaint of Dhian Singh, FIR No.
  125/92 was registered under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of
  !PC and after formal investigation the case was forwarded to
  the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar. The Judicial
G Magistrate, by order dated 14.12.1998, convicted both the
  accused persons and directed them to undergo rigorous
  imprisonment for 2 years each for the offence under Section
  304A and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to further
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to also
H undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each
   STATE or: PUNJAB v. BALWINDER SINGH AND                   49
             ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279 IPC.          A

     (c) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
14.12.1998, the accused persons preferred an appeal before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide judgment dated
20.05.2000, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the                B
judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Isl
Class, Amritsar.

     (d} Questioning the same, the respondents herein filed
Criminal Revision Petition being Nos. 653 and 655 of 2000 C
qua nature of offence and quantum of sentence before the High
Court. The High Court, by order dated 04.11.2009, while
confining to the question of quantum of sentence only, reduced
the sentence of the accused persons to the period already
undergone (15 days) and in addition thereto, enhanced the fine
to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each.                             D

     (e) Against the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab
 has filed these appeals before this Court by way of special
 leave petitions.
                                                                    E
      4. Heard Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel for
 the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Walia and Mr. K.G. Bhagat,
 learned counsel for the respondents.

      5. Before the High Court, the respondents, who preferred
 the revisions, did not dispute the finding relating to negligence F
 rendered by the courts below and confined their submissions
 to the quantum of sentence only and prayed that the sentence
 be reduced to the period already undergone. In support of the
 above claim, they pointed out that they had suffered a
 protracted trial for about 17 years and had already undergone G
 custody for 15 days, therefore, prayed for lenient view by
  modifying the sentence. On the other hand, on behalf of the
  State, it was submitted that inasmuch as the negligence was
  proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, no leniency should
  be shown to the accused. The High Court, withouttaking note H
        50         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 1 S.C.R

   A of the seriousness of the matter, namely, due to the negligence
     of the two drivers, five persons traveling in the bus died, merely
     because of protracted trial of about 17 years and both of them
     had served sentence for a period of 15 days, reduced the same
     to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to an
   B amount of Rs.25,000/- each.

          6. It is not in dispute that the trial Court on appreciation of
     evidence and accepting the prosecution witnesses convicted
     the respondents for an offence under Section 304A. The said
   C section reads as under:
             304A. Causing death by negligence.- Whoever causes
             the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act
             not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
             imprisonment of either description for a term which may
   D         extend "to two years, or with fine, or with both."
          7. Section 304A was inserted in the Penal Code by the
    Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act 27 of 1870 to cover those
    cases wherein a person cause the death of another by such
  E acts as are rash or negligent but there is no intention to cause
    death and no knowledge that the act will cause death. The case
    should not be covered by Sections 299 and 300 only then it
    will come under this section. The section provides punishment
    of either description for a term which may extend to two years
  F or fine or both in case of homicide by rash or negligent act. To
    bring a case of homicide under Section 304A IPC, the following
    conditions must exist, namely,
             1) There must be death of the person in question;
  G          2) the accused must have caused such death; and
             3) that such. act of the accused was rash or negligent and
             that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
        8. Even a decade ago, considering the galloping trend in
. H road accidents in India and its devastating consequences, this
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. 51
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Court in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 A
held that, 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 should not take a chance
thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with B
leniently by the court. The following principles laid down in that
 decision are very relevant:

     "1. When automobiles have become death traps any
     leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash
     driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road C
     accidents. All those who are manning the steering of
     automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be
     kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost
      care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases
      of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping D
      such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent
      element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to
      them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving
      frivolous and a frolic.
                                                                   E
      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 F
       Probation of Offenders 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 G
       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 H
      52        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 $.C.R."'

 A          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
 B         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 the vehicle he cannot
           escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the
           courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for
 c         lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous
           driving of automobiles."

        9. The same principles have been reiterated in 8.
     Nagabhushanam vs. State of Kamataka, 2008 (5) SCC 730.
 D     10. It is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of
  correction. If anyone 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'jimb.
  Considering the increased number of road accidents;, this
E Court, on several occasions, has reminded the criminal cOl.Jrts
  dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they
  cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC
  as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the
  Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We fully endorse the view
F expressed by this Court in Da/bir Singh (supra).

       11. While considering the quantum of sentence to be
   imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and
  negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime
G considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving
  motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking
  that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently py
  the Court. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due
  to careless and callous driving of vehicles, the courts are
H expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances
  STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALWINDER SINGH AND                    53
           ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM J.]
bearing on the question of sentence and proceeq to impose a A
sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence if the
prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
    · 12. In the light of the above principles, we express our B
inability to accept the reasoning of the High Court in reducing
the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone,
that is, 15 days. Merely because the fine amount has been
enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, is also not a sufficient ground
 to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where c
 five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers
 of the bus and the truck. Accordingly, we set aside the
 impugned order of the High Court and impose a sentence of
 rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/
 - each. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for 0
  surrender of the accused in both the appeals to serve the
  remaining period of sentence. The appeals are allowed to the
  extent mentioned above.
 R.P.                                        Appeals allowed.