Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.520 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5825 of 2014]

State of Punjab ... Appellant

Versus

Saurabh Bakshi             ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles,  

had to say:

“Law can never be enforced unless fear  supports them.”

Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries  

back,  it  has  its  pertinence,  in  a  way,  with  the enormous  

vigour,  in  today’s  society.   It  is  the  duty  of  every  right-

thinking  citizen  to  show  veneration  to  law  so  that  an

Page 2

orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges.  It has to be  

borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos.  It is  

totally intolerant of anarchy.  If any one defies law, he has  

to  face  the  wrath  of  law,  depending  on  the  concept  of  

proportionality  that  the  law  recognizes.   It  can  never  be  

forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by the  

competent  legislatures,  subject  to  judicial  scrutiny  within  

constitutionally  established  parameters,  is  to  protect  the  

collective interest and save every individual  that forms a  

constituent of the collective from unwarranted hazards.  It is  

sometimes  said  in  an  egocentric  and  uncivilised  manner  

that  law  cannot  bind  the  individual  actions  which  are  

perceived as flaws by the large body of  people,  but,  the  

truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test  

of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual  

notions are to be ignored.  At times certain crimes assume  

more  accent  and  gravity  depending  on  the  nature  and  

impact of the crime on the society.  No court should ignore  

the same being swayed by passion of  mercy.    It  is  the  

obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the  

right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the  

2

Page 3

person aggrieved as  well  as  the  society  at  large  can  be  

victims,  never  be marginalised.   In  this  context  one may  

recapitulate  the  saying  of  Justice  Benjamin  N.  Cardizo  

“Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser  

too”.   And,  therefore,  the  requisite  norm  has  to  be  the  

established principles laid down in precedents.  It is neither  

to  be  guided  by  a  sense  of  sentimentality  nor  to  be  

governed by prejudices.  We are constrained to commence  

with this prologue because we are required to deal with the  

concept of adequacy of quantum of sentence imposed by  

the High Court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code  

(IPC) after maintaining the conviction of the respondent of  

the said offence as the prosecution has proven the charge  

that the respondent has caused death of two persons by  

rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle.

2. The facts which are necessitous to be stated are that  

on  14.6.2007  Jagdish  Ram  and  his  nephew,  Shavinder  

Kumar @ Tinku, sister’s son, had proceeded from Sangrur to  

Patiala  in  their  Maruti  car  bearing  registration  PB-11-M-

8050.  The said vehicle was also followed by Ramesh Chand  

in another Maruti car bearing registration no. PB-09-C-6292.  

3

Page 4

Be it noted that all of them had gone to house of one Des  

Raj  at  Sangrur  in connection with matrimonial  alliance of  

Shavinder Kumar alias Tinku.  The vehicle that was driven  

by Tinku was  ahead of  Ramesh’s  at  a  distance of  25/30  

kadams.  After they reached some distance ahead of the  

bus stand village Mehmadpur about 2.00 p.m. an Indica car  

bearing registration no. HR-02-6800 came from the opposite  

side at a very high speed and the driver of the said car hit  

straightaway  the  car  of  Jagdish  and  dragged  it  to  a  

considerable  distance  as  a  result  of  which  it  fell  in  the  

ditches.   Ramesh  Chand,  who  was  following  in  his  car,  

witnessed that his brother-in-law and nephew had sustained  

number of injuries and their condition was critical.   A police  

ambulance came to the spot and the injured persons were  

taken  to  Rajindra  Hospital,  Patiala  where  Jagdish  and  

Shavinder Kumar succumbed to injuries.  In view of the said  

incident as FIR was lodged by Ramesh Chand, brother-in-

law  of  Jagdish  and  accordingly  a  crime  under  Section  

279/304A was registered against  the respondent for  rash  

and negligent driving.  The learned trial Magistrate, Patiala  

framed charges for the offences punishable under Section  

4

Page 5

279/304A IPC to which the respondent pleaded not guilty  

and claimed to be tried.   The prosecution in order to prove  

its case examined six witnesses.  The learned Addl. Chief  

Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide judgment and order dated  

23.4.2012  convicted  the  respondent  for  the  offences  

punishable under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and  

pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause.  On an appeal  

being preferred,  the learned Addl.  Sessions Judge, Patiala  

dismissed  the  appeal  by  judgment  and  order  dated  

6.9.2013.   

3. As  the  factual  matrix  would  unveil  the  respondent  

being grieved by the aforesaid conviction and the sentence  

preferred Criminal Revision No. 2955 of 2013 and the High  

Court while disposing off the Criminal Revision addressed to  

the  quantum  of  sentence  and  in  that  context  observed  

that:-   

“...the legal heirs of Jagdish Ram have been  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs.7,30,000/-  as  compensation  by  the  MACT  and  Rs.12,07,206/-  to  the  legal  heirs  of  Swinder  Kumar @ Tinku by the MACT.  The FAO Nos.  5329 and 5330 are pending in this Court.  In  compliance  of  order  dated  19.9.2013,  the  

5

Page 6

petitioner  has  deposited  Rs.85,000/-  before  the trial court as compensation to be paid to  the LRs of deceased Jagdish Ram and Swinder  Kumar @ Tinku.  The compensation shall  be  divided as Rs.50,000/- to the LRs of Swinder  Kumar @ Tinku and Rs.35,000/- to the LRs of  Jagdish Ram.  The receipt is taken on record.  As per custody certificate petitioner Saurabh  Bakshi  has  undergone  24  days  as  on  30.9.2013 out of one year.”   

Being of this view the High Court upheld the conviction and  

reduced the sentence,  as has been stated before,  to  the  

period already undergone.  Hence, the State is in appeal.    

4. At  this  juncture,  it  is  essential  to  state  that  the  

respondent who had initially wanted to argue the matter in-

person  had  agreed  to  be  assisted  by  a  counsel  and  

accordingly this court had appointed Ms. Meenakshi Arora,  

learned senior counsel to assist the court in the matter.  

5. We have heard  Mr.  V.  Madhukar,  learned  Additional  

Advocate General and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior  

counsel for the respondent.   

6. It  is  submitted  by  Mr.  Madhukar  that  when  the  

prosecution had been able to establish the charges leveled  

against  the  respondent  and  both  the  trial  court  and  the  

appellant court had maintained the sentence there was no  

6

Page 7

justification  on  the  part  of  the  High  Court  to  reduce  the  

sentence  to  the  period  already  undergone  solely  on  the  

basis that the respondent had paid some compensation.  It  

is his further submission that keeping in view the gravity of  

the offence that two deaths had occurred the High Court  

should have kept itself alive to the nature of the crime and  

should  have  been  well  advised  not  to  interfere  with  the  

quantum  of  sentence.   He  has  commended  us  to  the  

decisions  in  State of Punjab v.  Balwinder Singh and  

Others1 and  Guru Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa v.   

State of Karnataka2.

7. Ms. Meenakshi, learned senior counsel, per contra, has  

contended that the respondent was quite young at the time  

the accident took place and it may be an act of negligence,  

but the contributory facet by the Maruti car driver cannot be  

ruled out.  That apart, there are mitigating circumstances  

for reduction of the sentence and in the obtaining factual  

matrix  the  High  Court  has  appositely  adopted  corrective  

machinery  which  also  reflects  the  concept  of  

proportionality.   The  learned  senior  counsel  would  also  1 (2012) 2 SCC 182 2 (2012) 8 SCC 734

7

Page 8

submit  that  when  the  High  Court  has  exercised  the  

discretion  which  is  permissible  under  Section  304A  this  

court should be slow to interfere.  It is urged by her that  

when the compensation had been paid, the High Court has  

kept in view the aspect of rehabilitation of the victim and  

when that purpose have been sub-served the reduction of  

sentence should not be interfered with.  The learned senior  

counsel has drawn inspiration from Gopal Singh v. State  

of Uttarakhand3 and a recent judgment in Criminal Appeal  

No. 290 of 2015 titled State of M.P. v. Mehtaab4.  

8. At  the  outset,  it  is  essential  to  note  that  the  

respondent stood convicted by the trial court as well by the  

appellate  court.   The  findings  recorded  by  the  said  two  

courts are neither perverse nor did they call for interference  

in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  The High Court as  

we notice has been persuaded by the factum of payment of  

compensation  by  the  respondent  herein,  amounting  to  

Rs.85,000/-  to  the  LRs  of  deceased Jagdish  Ram and his  

nephew and the said compensation had been directed to be  

paid by virtue of the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the  3 (2013) 7 SCC 545 4 2015 (2) SCALE 386  

8

Page 9

High Court.  It is submitted by Ms. Arora that apart from the  

young age of the respondent at the time of occurrence the  

aforesaid aspect would constitute the mitigating factor.  In  

Mehtaab’s case a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the  

case under Section 304A IPC wherein the respondent was  

convicted  under  Section  304A  IPC  and  337  IPC  and  

sentenced to undergo one year and three months rigorous  

imprisonment respectively.  The High Court had reduced the  

sentence to 10 days.  It is apt to note here that in that case  

the deceased had received injuries due to shock of electric  

current.   The  court  took  note  of  the  submission  of  the  

learned counsel  for  the State and proceeded to opine as  

follows:-  

“7. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that  the  accused  Respondent  had  installed  a  transformer in his field and left the electric wires  naked which was a negligent  act.  The deceased  Sushila Bai died on account of the said naked wire  which had high voltage and was not visible in the  dark. The offence having been fully proved by the  evidence  on  record,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified in reducing the sentence to 10 days which  was  not  just  and  fair.  Even  if  liberal  view  on  sentence  of  imprisonment  was  to  be  taken,  the  High Court ought to have enhanced the sentence  of fine and awarded a reasonable compensation as  a condition for reduction of sentence.

9

Page 10

8. We find force in the submission.  It  is  the  duty of the Court to award just sentence to a  convict against whom charge is proved. While  every mitigating or aggravating circumstance  may  be  given  due  weight,  mechanical  reduction  of  sentence  to  the  period  already  undergone cannot  be  appreciated.  Sentence  has to be fair not only to the accused but also  to  the  victim and the society.  It  is  also  the  duty of the court to duly consider the aspect  of  rehabilitating  the  victim.  Unfortunately,  these  factors  are  missing  in  the  impugned  order.  No  cogent  reason has  been  assigned  for imposing only 10 days sentence when an  innocent life has been lost.”  

After so stating the court referred to the decision in Suresh  

v.  State  of  Haryana5 and  enhanced  the  compensation  

taking  note  of  the  financial  capacity  of  the  accused  

respondent therein, and directed as follows:-  

“10.  As  already  observed,  the  Respondent  having been found guilty of causing death by  his  negligence,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  reducing  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  to  10  days  without  awarding  any  compensation  to  the  heirs  of  the  deceased. We are of the view that in the facts  and circumstances of the case,  the order of  the High Court can be upheld only with the  modification  that  the  accused  will  pay  compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the heirs of the  deceased within six months. In default, he will  undergo RI for six months. The compensation  of Rs. 2 lakhs is being fixed having regard to  the limited financial resources of the accused  but  the  said  compensation  may  not  be  

5 Crl Appeal No. 420 of 2012, decided on 28.11.2014

1

Page 11

adequate  for  the  heirs  of  the  deceased.  In  such  situation,  in  addition  to  the  compensation to be paid by the accused, the  State  can  be  required  to  pay  compensation  Under Section 357-A. As per judgment of this  Court in Suresh (supra), the scheme adopted  by the State of Kerala is applicable to all the  States  and  the  said  scheme  provides  for  compensation upto Rs. 5 lakhs in the case of  death.  In  the  present  case,  it  will  be  appropriate,  in  the  interests  of  justice,  to  award  interim  compensation  of  Rs.  3  lakhs  Under Section 357-A payable out of the funds  available/to be made available by the State of  Madhya  Pradesh  with  the  District  Legal  Services,  Authority,  Guna.  In  case,  the  accused  does  not  pay  the  compensation  awarded  as  above,  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  will  pay  the  entire  amount  of  compensation  of  Rs.  5  lakhs  within  three  months after expiry of the time granted to the  accused.”

9. In our considered view the decision in the said case  

has to be confined to the facts of that case.  It cannot be  

said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused offers  

acceptable  compensation  for  rehabilitation  of  a  victim,  

regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304A,  

there can be reduction of sentence.  

10. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision  

in  Balwinder Singh  (supra) wherein the High Court had  

allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence  

1

Page 12

awarded  by  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  for  the  

offences punishable under Section 304A, 337, 279 of IPC by  

reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone  

that is 15 days.  The court referred to the decision in Dalbir  

Singh  v.  State  of  Haryana6  and  reproduced  two  

paragraphs  which  we  feel  extremely  necessary  for  

reproduction:-

“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,  

6  (2000) 5 SCC 82

1

Page 13

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.”

11. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka7  the  

appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for  

six months for the offences punishable under Section 304A  

IPC.  The two-Judge Bench referred to Dalbir Singh (supra)  

and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence.  Be  

it stated, in the said case a passage from Ratan Singh v.  

State of Punjab8 was quoted:-

7 (2008) 5 SCC 730  8 (1979) 4 SCC719  

1

Page 14

“Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy  of correction. This driver, if he 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. Punishment in this area  must,  therefore,  be  accompanied  by  these  components. The State, we hope, will attach a  course  for  better  driving  together  with  a  livelier  sense  of  responsibility,  when  the  punishment is for driving offences. Maybe, the  State may consider, in case of men with poor  families,  occasional  parole  and  reformatory  courses  on  appropriate  application,  without  the rigour of the old rules which are subject to  Government discretion.”

12. In  Guru Basavaraj  (supra) the appellant was found  

guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338,  

279  and  304A  IPC  and  sentenced  to  suffer  simple  

imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-  

and in  default  to  suffer  simple imprisonment of  45 days.  

The  two-Judge  Bench  after  placing  reliance  on  State  of  

Karnataka  v.  Krishna9,  Sevaka  Perumal  v.  State  of  

T.N.10,  Jashubha  Bharatsinh  Gohil  v.  State  of  

Gujarat11,  State  of  Karnataka  v.  Sharanappa  

Basanagouda  Aregoudar12 and State  of  M.P.  v.  

9 (1987) 1 SCC 538  10 (1991) 3 SCC 471 11 (19940 4 SCC 353  12 (2002) 3 SCC 738  

1

Page 15

Saleem13 opined that there is  a constant concern of the  

court  on  imposition  of  adequate  sentence  in  respect  of  

commission of offences regard being had to the nature of  

the offence and demand of the conscience of the society.  

There  has  been  emphasis  on  the  concern  to  impose  

adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section  

304A IPC.  The Court has observed that it is worthy to note  

that in certain circumstances,  the mitigating factors have  

been  taken  into  consideration  but  the  said  aspect  is  

dependent  on  the  facts  of  each  case.  As  the  trend  of  

authorities  would  show,  the  proficiency  in  professional  

driving is  emphasised upon and deviation therefrom that  

results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident  

has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number  

of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a  

stir  in  the society;  sense of  fear  prevails  all  around.  The  

negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective.  

When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality  

of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity  

in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected  

13 (2005) 5 SCC 554  

1

Page 16

persons,  both direct  and vicarious,  can  have nightmarish  

effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt  

more when accidents take place quite often because of rash  

driving  by  drunken,  negligent  or,  for  that  matter,  

adventurous  drivers  who  have,  in  a  way,  no  concern  for  

others.  Be  it  noted,  grant  of  compensation  under  the  

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different  

sphere  altogether.  Grant  of  compensation  under  Section  

357(3) CrPC with a direction that the same should be paid  

to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason  

of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a  

different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a  

substitute  in  all  circumstances  for  adequate  sentence.  

Thereafter, the Court proceeded to observe:-

“32.  We  may  note  with  profit  that  an  appropriate  punishment  works  as  an  eye- opener  for  the  persons  who  are  not  careful  while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit  a  careless  attitude  possibly  harbouring  the  notion that they would be shown indulgence  or lives of others are like “flies to the wanton  boys”.  They  totally  forget  that  the  lives  of  many are in their hands, and the sublimity of  safety of a human being is given an indecent  burial by their rash and negligent act.

1

Page 17

33. There can hardly be any cavil that there  has to be a proportion between the crime and  the punishment. It is the duty of the court to  see  that  appropriate  sentence  is  imposed  regard  being  had  to  the  commission  of  the  crime and its impact on the social order. The  cry of the collective for justice which includes  adequate  punishment  cannot  be  lightly  ignored.”

Being of this view, the Court declined to interfere.  

13. In Siriya v. State of M.P.14 it has been held as follows:-  

“Protection  of  society  and  stamping  out  criminal proclivity must be the object of law  which  must  be  achieved  by  imposing  appropriate  sentence.  Therefore,  law  as  a  cornerstone  of  the  edifice  of  “order”  should  meet the challenges confronting the society.  Friedman  in  his  Law  in  Changing  Society  stated that: “State of criminal law continues to  be—as it  should  be—a decisive  reflection  of  social consciousness of society”. Therefore, in  operating the sentencing system, law should  adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence  based on factual  matrix.  By deft  modulation  sentencing process be stern where it  should  be,  and  tempered  with  mercy  where  it  warrants to be.”

14. In  Alister  Anthony  Pareira  v.  State  of   

Maharashtra15 while emphasizing on the inherent danger  

the Court observed thus:-  

“39. Like Section  304-A,  Sections  279,  336,  337  and  338  IPC  are  attracted  for  only  the  

14 (2008) 8 SCC 72 15 (2012) 2 SCC 648

1

Page 18

negligent or rash act. The scheme of Sections  279,  304-A,  336,  337  and  338  leaves  no  manner  of  doubt  that  these  offences  are  punished because of  the inherent danger  of  the  acts  specified  therein  irrespective  of  knowledge or intention to produce the result  and irrespective of the result. These sections  make punishable  the acts  themselves which  are likely to cause death or injury to human  life.”

15. While dealing with the policy of sentencing in  Gopal  

Singh  (supra)  the  two-Judge  Bench  quoted  a  paragraph  

from Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat16 which is  

as follows:-

“7.  The  law  regulates  social  interests,  arbitrates  conflicting  claims  and  demands.  Security of persons and property of the people  is an essential function of the State. It could  be  achieved  through  instrumentality  of  criminal  law.  Undoubtedly,  there  is  a  cross- cultural  conflict  where  living  law  must  find  answer to the new challenges and the courts  are required to mould the sentencing system  to  meet  the  challenges.  The  contagion  of  lawlessness would undermine social order and  lay  it  in  ruins.  Protection  of  society  and  stamping out criminal proclivity must be the  object  of  law  which  must  be  achieved  by  imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law  as  a  cornerstone  of  the  edifice  of  ‘order’  should  meet  the  challenges  confronting  the  society.  Friedman  in  his  Law  in  Changing  Society  stated  that:  ‘State  of  criminal  law  continues to be—as it  should be—a decisive  reflection of social consciousness of society.’  

16 (2006) 2 SCC 359

1

Page 19

Therefore,  in  operating  the  sentencing  system,  law  should  adopt  the  corrective  machinery  or  deterrence  based  on  factual  matrix.  By  deft  modulation,  sentencing  process  be  stern  where  it  should  be,  and  tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.  The  facts  and  given  circumstances  in  each  case, the nature of the crime, the manner in  which  it  was  planned  and  committed,  the  motive  for  commission  of  the  crime,  the  conduct  of  the  accused,  the  nature  of  weapons  used  and  all  other  attending  circumstances are relevant facts which would  enter into the area of consideration.”

In the said case it has been laid as follows:-  

“18.  Just  punishment is  the collective cry of  the society. While the collective cry has to be  kept  uppermost  in  the mind,  simultaneously  the  principle  of  proportionality  between  the  crime  and  punishment  cannot  be  totally  brushed  aside.  The  principle  of  just  punishment  is  the  bedrock  of  sentencing  in  respect  of  a  criminal  offence.  A  punishment  should  not  be  disproportionately  excessive.  The  concept  of  proportionality  allows  a  significant  discretion  to  the  Judge  but  the  same has to be guided by certain principles.  In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the  antecedents  of  the  accused,  the  factum  of  age, the potentiality of the convict to become  a  criminal  in  future,  capability  of  his  reformation and to lead an acceptable life in  the prevalent milieu, the effect — propensity  to  become a  social  threat  or  nuisance,  and  sometimes lapse of time in the commission of  the crime and his conduct in the interregnum  bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the  relationship  between  the  parties  and  attractability  of  the  doctrine  of  bringing  the  

1

Page 20

convict to the value-based social mainstream  may  be  the  guiding  factors.  Needless  to  emphasise,  these  are  certain  illustrative  aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We  may hasten to add that there can neither be a  straitjacket  formula nor  a solvable  theory in  mathematical  exactitude.  It  would  be  dependent  on  the  facts  of  the  case  and  rationalised  judicial  discretion.  Neither  the  personal  perception  of  a  Judge  nor  self- adhered  moralistic  vision  nor  hypothetical  apprehensions should be allowed to have any  play.  For  every  offence,  a  drastic  measure  cannot  be thought  of.  Similarly,  an offender  cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency  solely on the ground of discretion vested in a  court.  The  real  requisite  is  to  weigh  the  circumstances  in  which  the  crime  has  been  committed  and  other  concomitant  factors  which  we  have  indicated  hereinbefore  and  also  have  been  stated  in  a  number  of  pronouncements  by  this  Court.  On  such  touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed.  The discretion should not be in the realm of  fancy.  It  should  be  embedded  in  the  conceptual essence of just punishment.”

16. In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 17 though  

in  a  different  context  while  dealing  with  the  issue  of  

sentencing it has been stated that primarily it is to be borne  

in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal.  

Sentence is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of  

the offence and the manner in which the offence has been  

committed.  The  fundamental  purpose  of  imposition  of  17 (2013) 7 SCC 77

2

Page 21

sentence is based on the principle that the accused must  

realise  that  the  crime  committed  by  him  has  not  only  

created a dent in his life but also a concavity in the social  

fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that  

the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the  

collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes. It  

serves  as  a  deterrent.  True  it  is,  on  certain  occasions,  

opportunities may be granted to the convict for reforming  

himself  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  principle  of  

proportionality  between  an  offence  committed  and  the  

penalty imposed are to be kept in view. While carrying out  

this  complex  exercise,  it  is  obligatory  on the part  of  the  

court to see the impact of the offence on the society as a  

whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective as  

well as its repercussions on the victim.

17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent  

driving  has  been  established.   This  court  has  been  

constantly  noticing  the  increase  in  number  of  road  

accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have  

been totally rash and negligent.  It seems to us driving in a  

drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving  

2

Page 22

with  youthful  adventurous  enthusiasm as  if  there  are  no  

traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre  

stage.    

The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for  

law.  A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated  

himself  to harbour the idea that he can escape from the  

substantive sentence by payment of compensation.  Neither  

the law nor the court that implements the law should ever  

get oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives  

are  lost  or  the  victims  who  survive  are  crippled  for  life  

which,  in  a  way,  worse  then death.   Such  developing  of  

notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly society.  

Young  age  cannot  be  a  plea  to  be  accepted  in  all  

circumstances.  Life to the poor or the impecunious is as  

worth  living  for  as  it  is  to  the  rich  and  the  luxuriously  

temperamental.   Needless  to  say,  the  principle  of  

sentencing  recognizes  the  corrective  measures  but  there  

are  occasions  when  the  deterrence  is  an  imperative  

necessity  depending  upon  the  facts  of  the  case.   In  our  

opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that  

the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of  

2

Page 23

mercy  in  applying  the  principle  that  payment  of  

compensation is  a  factor  for  reduction of  sentence to 24  

days.  It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy.  

It is, in a way mockery of justice.  Because justice is “the  

crowning  glory”,  “the  sovereign  mistress”  and “queen  of  

virtue” as Cicero had said.  Such a crime blights not only  

the lives of the victims but of many others around them.  It  

ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system.  

In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the  

trial  Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate  

court should be reduced to six months.     

18. Before  parting  with  the  case  we  are  compelled  to  

observe  that  India  has  a  disreputable  record  of  road  

accidents.   There  is  a  non-challant  attitude  among  the  

drivers.  They feel that they are the “Emperors of all they  

survey”.  Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where  

the other people become their prey.  The poor feel that their  

lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and  

the  civilized  persons  drive  in  constant  fear  but  still  

apprehensive about  the obnoxious attitude of  the people  

who  project  themselves  as  “larger  than  life”.   In  such  

2

Page 24

obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the  

lawmakers  should  scrutinize,  re-look  and  re-visit  the  

sentencing  policy  in  Section  304A,  IPC.   We  say  so  with  

immense anguish.   

19. Resultantly,  the  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  extent  

indicated above and the respondent be taken into custody  

forthwith to suffer the remaining period of sentence.

........................................J.     [DIPAK MISRA]

........................................J.                      [PRAFULLA C. PANT]

NEW DELHI MARCH 30, 2015.

2