Summary
A driver convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for rashly driving a car at high speed at a crossroad and colliding with an ambulance, which overturned, killing one person and injuring two occupants, was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, confirmed by the Sessions Court. In revision the Punjab and Haryana High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to eight months' simple imprisonment, roughly the period already undergone, on deposit of Rs. 25,000 as compensation, treating his poverty as mitigating. On the State's appeal the Supreme Court restored the trial court's sentence, holding that the High Court showed undue sympathy without regard to the gravity and manner of the offence, that proportionality between crime and punishment is the bedrock of sentencing, and that treating payment of compensation as a ground for drastic reduction is misplaced sympathy.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence for causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A IPC from two years' rigorous imprisonment to eight months on payment of compensation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death was affirmed by all courts; the question was only the adequacy of sentence, which must reflect the gravity of the offence and the manner of its commission. (¶¶ 2, 5, 5.1, 6)
Held
- While reducing the sentence the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offence or the manner in which it was committed, namely driving at high speed at a crossroad so that the ambulance overturned, killing one person and injuring two; the IPC is punitive and deterrent, courts must bear in mind proportionality between crime and punishment, and the need to punish those responsible for motor accidents strictly has been repeatedly emphasised. (¶¶ 5, 5.1)
- Following Saurabh Bakshi and Surendra Singh, undue sympathy by imposing an inadequate sentence harms the justice system and undermines public confidence; applying payment of compensation as a factor for reducing the sentence to a token period is misplaced sympathy and a mockery of justice, and a court must award a sentence commensurate with the nature of the offence, keeping in view the rights of the victim and society. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3, 5.4)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 26.04.2017 reducing the sentence under Section 304A IPC to eight months' simple imprisonment quashed; sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Sessions Court restored; accused to surrender within four weeks to undergo the remaining sentence.