REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.  47-48       OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7872-7873 of 2010)

State of Punjab               .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Balwinder Singh and Ors.              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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  

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,  Ist  Class,  

Amritsar  as  upheld  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  

1

Amritsar 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-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-D-9485.  The bus was being driven at a very high speed by  

the driver-Respondent No. 1 herein.   When the aforesaid bus  

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, 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.

2

(b) On the basis of the complaint of Dhian Singh, FIR No.  

125/92 was registered under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of  

IPC and after formal investigation the case was forwarded to  

the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ist  Class,  Amritsar.   The  

Judicial 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  

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  six  months  

each for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279  

IPC.

(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 judgment and order  

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar.   

(d) Questioning  the  same,  the  respondents  herein  filed  

Criminal  Revision Petition being Nos.  653 and 655 of  2000  

qua nature  of  offence  and  quantum of  sentence  before  the  

3

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.

(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.       

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  

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  

custody  for  15  days,  therefore,  prayed  for  lenient  view  by  

modifying the sentence.  On the other hand, on behalf of the  

4

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, without taking note  

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 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  

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  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  

acts as are rash or negligent but there is no intention to cause  

5

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 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;

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  

road accidents in India and its devastating consequences, this  

Court in  Dalbir Singh vs.  State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC  

82 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  

6

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 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 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.

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  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 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 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 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 lessening the high rate of motor accidents  due to callous driving of automobiles.”

7

9) The  same  principles  have  been  reiterated  in  B.  

Nagabhushanam vs.  State  of  Karnataka,  2008  (5)  SCC  

730.

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  

limb.  Considering the increased number of  road accidents,  

this Court,  on several occasions,  has reminded the criminal  

courts  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 expressed by this Court in Dalbir 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  

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 by  

8

the Court.  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 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.  

12) In  the  light  of  the  above  principles,  we  express  our  

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 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 surrender of the accused in both the appeals to serve  

9

the remaining period of sentence.  The appeals are allowed to  

the extent mentioned above.

………….…………………………J.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                 (J. CHELAMESWAR)                                   

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 6, 2012.

1