STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs RAM PAL
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000393-000393 / 2015
Diary number: 14238 / 2013
Advocates: VARINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.4213 OF 2013)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH …APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAM PAL …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order
dated 27th February, 2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.406 of 2011.
3. Only question raised for consideration is whether the sentence
imposed in the facts and circumstances is fair and just.
Page 2
2
4. On 20th August, 2009 at 5.35 P.M. FIR was lodged by PW 3
Chhering to the effect that he was a mason in the work of
construction of road at Gulaba near Manali. At 2.30 P.M., a tanker
driven by the respondent accused struck the deceased Sonam a 20
year old girl, which was on account of rash and negligence driving
by the respondent. The injured was taken to Mission hospital, Manali
where she was declared dead on arrival. After completing the
investigation, the accused was sent up for trial.
5. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW 1 Dr.
Balbir Rawat, PW 2 Budhi Singh, PW 3 Chhering, PW 4 Smt. Seema,
PW 5 Sange Sherpa and PW 6 SI Om Chand. The accused took up
the plea that the deceased came under the rear tyre after a part of
the vehicle had already crossed. The girl had come running and
struck against the vehicle and the appellant was not rash or
negligent in driving.
6. The trial Court noted that the vehicle was coming uphill as
admitted by PW 4 Seema. It was also admitted that the girl was
struck on the back side of the vehicle. The vehicle was going uphill
on a road, condition of which was bad. Thus, the vehicle could not
be at high speed.
7. On appeal, the view taken by the trial Court was reversed. It
was held that even if the vehicle was going at slow speed and uphill,
the vehicle could have been stopped and its striking to the girl could
Page 3
3
have been prevented. Undoubtedly, the death was because of
vehicle hitting the girl which in the circumstances was clear result of
rash and negligent act of driving. Accordingly, the appellate Court
convicted the respondent under Section 279 and 304 A IPC and
awarded sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of
Rs.1000, in default further imprisonment of one month under
Section 304 A IPC and concurrent imprisonment for three months
and fine of Rs.500, in default further imprisonment of fifteen days
under Section 279 IPC.
8. The respondent accused preferred appeal to the High Court.
The High Court noticed the post mortem report to the effect that
“the cause of death of the deceased was crush injury of lumbo-
sacral spine and pelvic bone leading to cardio respiratory arrest”. It
was inferred that such injury could be possible only with rash and
negligent driving. However, sentence of imprisonment was set
aside and substituted by fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of which
sentence awarded by the trial Court was to revive.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that it was the duty
of the Court to award just and fair sentence. If a liberal view was
taken on sentence of imprisonment, reasonable amount of
compensation was required to be awarded. On this text, the view
taken by the High Court is not sustainable. The amount of
Page 4
4
Rs.40,000/- cannot be held to be adequate compensation when life
of a young girl aged 20 years was lost.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
accused was a poor man and a driver and could not pay more
amount as compensation. He also submitted that even though it
was a case of driving in a difficult terrain where different parameters
ought to be applied for determining negligence.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the record.
13. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case that
the respondent has not called in question his conviction. We have
before us only challenge to the inadequacy of the sentence in the
present appeal filed by the State. Moreover, in an appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not re-appreciate the
evidence, in absence of perversity or patent legal error, merely
because a different view was also possible. We are thus, not
inclined to reopen the correctness of conviction of the respondent
and proceed to consider the question of adequacy of the sentence.
In our view, the sentence of mere fine of Rs.40,000/- imposed by the
High Court is not adequate and proportionate to the offence. We
have been informed that a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- has been awarded
as compensation by the insurance company to the heirs of the
deceased. We are also of the view that where the accused is unable
Page 5
5
to pay adequate compensation to the victim or his heir, the Court
ought to have awarded compensation under Section 357A against
the State from the funds available under the Victim Compensation
Scheme framed under the said section. This Court has dealt with
the issue in Suresh vs. State of Haryana1, Manohar Singh vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2015
decided on 16.1.2015) and State of M.P. vs. Mehtaab
(Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2015 decided on 13.2.2015).
Having regard to totality of circumstances of the present case, we
feel that ends of justice will be served if the accused is required to
pay total compensation of Rs.1 lakh and the State to pay a sum of
Rs.3 lakhs.
14. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order passed by the High
Court and enhance the compensation to be paid by the respondent
accused to Rs.1 lakh to be paid within four months failing which the
sentence awarded by the Court of Session shall stand revived. In
addition, we direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay interim
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. In case the respondent fails to pay any
part of the compensation, that part of compensation will also be
paid by the State so that the heirs of the victim get total sum of Rs.
4 lakhs towards compensation. The amount already paid may be
adjusted.
1 2015 (2) SCC 227
Page 6
6
15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
….…………………………….J. [T.S. THAKUR]
.….……………………………..J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 27, 2015