Ranjit Singh alias Amru vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

Ranjit Singh petitioner was tried and convicted for the offences under sections 304A, 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304A, IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for the offence under section 279, IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pathankot, by judgment/order dated 6.3.1995. An appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which was rejected by judgment July 25, 1995. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The facts in brief are that on 11.9.1994 at about 7.50 a.m. the petitioner while driving truck No. PAT4110 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn, struck against Maruti car bearing registration No. PCF362 driven by Dr. Hari Chand Gupta, as a result of which Dr. Hari Chand Gupta died and the other occupants of the car received injuries. A charge under sections 304A, 279, 427, IPC, was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. The Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pathankot, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate I Class were confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice of motion only qua sentence was issued to the State. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Shri P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner has no past criminal history nor he is a previous convict; that he is the only bread winner of his family and ought to have been released on probation under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

On the other hand the learned State counsel while drawing the attention of the Court to the fact since the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving whereby he has taken the life of a senior doctor and has caused injuries to four other occupants of the car besides damaging the vehicle, does not deserve any sympathy in the matter of sentence nor the benefit of probation can be extended to such a convict. The learned State counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the apex Court cited by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order dated March 6, 1995.

There is no dispute regarding the factual position. The petitioner repented at the threshold of the trial and pleaded guilty without causing any loss to the public time or the exchequer in prosecuting him. It is also correct that the apex Court has expressed its anguish on the leniency shown in the matter of sentencing such a convict and letting him off either on probation or with a penalty of fine. It cannot be disputed that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. This question would always differ from case to case. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 861, cited by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order of sentence, the apex Court made the following observations:

"The respondent has been let off with a total fine of Rs. 345/ for his convictions under all the five charges relating to the death of one person and the sustainment of injuries by another due to his rash and negligent driving, besides his failure to secure medical assistance to the victims as well as failure to make a report to the authorities about the accident. The respondent had not only driven his bus in a reckless manner and caused the death of one person and injuries to another but he had also attempted to escape prosecution by failing to report the accident to the police authorities. Considerations of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of the sentence of fine of Rs. 250/ on the driver of a Motor Vehicle for an offence under Section 304A IPC and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was mockery of justice."

With the above observations, the sentence in that case was enhanced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. In that case also by rash and negligent driving of the accused there was a loss of life and injuries sustained by another person. I do agree with the learned counsel for the State that in the present case the petitioner should not be extended the benefit of probation and he must be kept in the environment of an institution of confinement for some period to enable him to ponder and broad over his rash and negligent act whereby he has taken the life of one person and caused injuries to others. A sentence of long term imprisonment, in a particular case like the present one may not have a healthy effect or result. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, is brought in line with the sentence awarded by the apex Court, in the case of Krishna alias Raju (supra).

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition succeeds in part. The conviction of the petitioner on all the three counts is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him for the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, is hereby reduced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment. The remaining sentences imposed upon the petitoner including the sentence of fine under section 304A, Indian Penal Code are hereby maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner shall run concurrently.