Summary
The Court affirmed a bus driver’s convictions arising from an accident that killed four people and injured three. The eyewitness and injured-witness evidence established both identity and rash and negligent driving; the suggested fault of an approaching lorry did not undermine the concurrent findings. The Court refused to reduce the concurrent four-month imprisonment terms, emphasising proportionate punishment and deterrence in fatal road accidents.
Issues
- Whether the driver’s identity and rash and negligent driving were proved.
- Whether passage of time warranted reduction of the custodial sentence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860Affirmed the driving, hurt and negligent-death convictions and refused reduction of the sentences imposed. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- The consistent evidence, including that of injured witnesses, supported the concurrent identification of the appellant as driver and the finding that his rash and negligent driving caused the accident. The alternative explanation blaming the approaching lorry had been considered and rejected on the evidence. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Sentencing must reflect the gravity and manner of the offence, with deterrence and correction among its objectives. Fatal negligent driving, particularly by a professional driver, could not be treated with unwarranted leniency. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Four deaths and three injuries made the punishment already imposed rather lenient. There was no enhancement appeal and the Court did not enlarge the sentence, but passage of time supplied no basis for reducing it. (¶ 17)
- The appellant was to surrender within four weeks and serve the remaining sentence, with adjustment for custody already undergone. Failing surrender, the trial court was to secure service of the sentence. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld. Appellant directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.