State of Punjab Versus Dil Bahadur

State of Punjab Versus Dil Bahadur 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2023

(@ SLP (Crl) No. 2984 OF 2018)

State of Punjab ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Dil Bahadur …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision

Application being CRR No. 4113/2016, by which, though

the High Court has upheld the conviction of respondent

herein for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian

Penal Code, however, has reduced the sentence from two

years to eight months, subject to a prior deposit of Rs.

25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal

heir of the deceased, the State of Punjab has preferred the

1

present appeal.

2. That respondent herein – original accused was driving a

Scorpio Car rashly and negligently, due to which one

person died while over taking the ambulance from the left

side. Because of the rash and negligent driving on the part

of the respondent – accused two persons sitting in the

ambulance also suffered injuries. Due to the collision, in

fact, the ambulance turned turtle, which shows the

manner in which the accused was driving the Scorpio with

high speed. The respondent herein came to be tried for the

offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. The

learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences

under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and the sentence

of the accused came to be confirmed by the learned

Sessions Court. The accused preferred the present revision

application before the High Court. By the impugned

judgment and order, though the High Court has confirmed

the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section

304A of the IPC, however, has reduced the sentence to

eight months SI subject to a prior deposit of Rs. 25,000/-.

2

At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the time

when the High Court decided the revision application, the

accused had undergone an actual sentence period of seven

months and fifteen days and therefore, the High Court

seems to have reduced the sentence to eight months only.

2.1 Against the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court by which the High Court has reduced the

sentence to eight months for the offence under Section

304A of IPC, the State of Punjab has preferred the present

appeal.

3. Ms. Kanika Ahuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court has seriously

erred in interfering with the sentence imposed by the

learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

3.1 It is submitted that while reducing the sentence the High

Court has shown un-due sympathy to the accused. It is

submitted that while reducing the sentence the High Court

has not properly appreciated and/or considered the

3

manner in which the accused committed the offence. It is

submitted that the High Court has not properly

appreciated the fact that because of the rash and negligent

driving on the part of the accused one innocent person lost

his life and two persons suffered injuries who were

travelling in the ambulance.

3.2 It is submitted that the accused was driving the Scorpio

(car) with such a high speed and that too when he was on

the cross road, rashly and negligently and due to the

collision, the ambulance turned turtle. It is submitted that

therefore, the High Court ought not to have shown un-due

sympathy in favour of such an accused person, because of

whose act of rash and negligent driving one innocent

person lost his life and two persons sustained injuries.

3.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the

decisions of this Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Surendra Singh (2015) 1 SCC 222 and in

the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5

SCC 182, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and

4

restore the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court

and confirmed by the learned Sessions Court.

4. While opposing the present appeal Shri Aftab Ali Khan,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

accused, appointed by the Supreme Court Legal Aid

Committee, has submitted that when considering the

mitigating circumstances the High Court has reduced the

sentence to eight months on a prior deposit of Rs.

25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to the

family/legal heir of the deceased, the same may not be

interfered with by this Court.

4.1 It is submitted that the respondent – accused is a poor

person and was only a driver and therefore, if he is sent to

undergo two years RI, he and his family members will

suffer. It is submitted that when the aforesaid facts have

been considered by the High Court and the High Court has

reduced the sentence, the same may not be interfered with

by this Court.

5

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to

be noted that the respondent – accused has been convicted

for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. His

conviction for the aforesaid offences have been confirmed

by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order.

However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High

Court has interfered with the sentence imposed by the`

learned Trial Court affirmed by the learned Sessions Court

and has reduced the sentence from two years to eight

months. However, while reducing the sentence, the High

Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offence

and the manner in which the accused committed the

offence and driving the Scorpio in rash and negligent

manner due to which one innocent person lost his life and

two persons who were travelling in the ambulance

sustained the injuries. The High Court has also not

properly appreciated and considered the fact that due to

collision the ambulance turned turtle. This shows the

impact on the ambulance and the rash and negligent

driving on the part of the accused. Cogent reasons were

6

given by the learned Trial Court while sentencing the

accused to undergo two years RI for the offence under

Section 304A of IPC. From the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court, it appears that the case

on behalf of the accused that he is coming from a poor

family, is considered as mitigating circumstance. However,

the High Court has not properly considered that because

of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the

accused one innocent person died and two persons who

were travelling in the ambulance sustained injuries.

5.1 The High Court has not at all considered the fact that the

IPC is punitive and deterrent in nature. The principal aim

and object are to punish offenders for offences committed

under IPC. Sections 279 and 304A can be invoked only if

act of the accused is negligent and rash. As observed by

this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.

Ramchandra Rabidas (2019) 10 SCC 75, this Court time

and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish

offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents.

With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an

7

increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The

financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a

family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of

the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be

quantified. As observed and held, the principle of

proportionality between the crime and punishment has to

be borne in mind. As observed that the principle of just

punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a

criminal offence.

5.2 At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of

Saurabh Bakshi (supra), in which this Court was

considering the offence under Section 304A of IPC is

required to be referred to. On the principle of sentencing,

this Court has observed and held as under: -

“The eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, said

centuries back : “Laws can never be enforced unless

fear supports them.” The statement 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 orderly, civilised 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 anyone defies law, he has to

face the wrath of law, depending on the concept of

proportionality that the law recognises. 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

8

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 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. Cardozo “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.”

5.2.1 It is further observed that the principle of sentencing

recognises the corrective measures but there are

occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity

depending upon the facts of the case.

5.2.2 In the aforesaid decision, the High Court reduced the

sentence and shown the mercy while applying the

principle that payment of compensation is a factor for

reduction. To that, this Court has observed that it is

absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a

way mockery of justice. It is observed and held as under:-

9

“Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognises

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 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.”

5.2.3 Showing the concern about increasing the road

accidents, it is observed in the said decision as under: -

“India has a disreputable record of road accidents.

There is a nonchalant 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 civilised persons drive in constant fear but

still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the

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

such obtaining circumstances, the lawmakers should

scrutinise, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in

Section 304-A IPC, so with immense anguish.”

5.3 At this stage, another decision of this Court in the case of

Surendra Singh (supra) which is also on the offences

under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, is required to be

referred to. In the case before this Court, the learned Trial

Court while convicting the accused for the offence under

10

Section 304A sentenced the accused to undergo two years

RI. The High Court while maintaining the conviction,

reduced the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court

from two years RI to the period already undergone and

granted a further compensation of Rs. 2000/- payable to

the widow/mother of the deceased. While disapproving the

view taken by the High Court and setting aside the order

passed by the High Court reducing the sentence, this

Court has observed in paragraphs 6 to 14 as under: -

“6. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of

evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that

the accused had endangered the life of Vijay by driving

the jeep on a public road in a rash and negligent

manner. The accused dashed the jeep against a pulia

first and then against a babul tree. As a result of such

accident Vijay Singh, who was travelling in the jeep got

injured and died, and another person Mangilal, who

was also in the jeep, received injuries. We are of the

opinion that the trial court has not committed any

illegality in passing the order of conviction and in the

appeal preferred by the accused findings of the trial

court were affirmed. However, without proper

appreciation of the evidence and consideration of

gravity of the offence, the learned Single Judge of the

High Court has shown undue sympathy by modifying

the conviction to the period already undergone.

7. In our considered opinion, the High Court while

passing the impugned order [Surendra Singh v. State of

M.P., Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2008, decided on 22-

8-2012 (MP)] has completely failed to follow the

principles enunciated by this Court in a catena of

decisions. Undue sympathy by means of imposing

inadequate sentence would do more harm to the

justice system to undermine the public confidence in

the efficacy of law and the society cannot endure long

11

under serious threats. If the courts do not protect the

injured, the injured would then resort to personal

vengeance. Therefore, the duty of any court is to award

proper sentence having regard to the nature of the

offence and the manner in which it was committed.

(See Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471

: 1991 SCC (Cri) 724 : AIR 1991 SC 1463] )

8. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. [(1994) 2

SCC 220 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 358] this Court held as

under: (SCC p. 239, paras 14-15)

“14. In recent years, the rising crime rate—particularly

violent crime against women has made the criminal

sentencing by the courts a subject of concern. Today

there are admitted disparities. Some criminals get very

harsh sentences while many receive grossly different

sentence for an essentially equivalent crime and a

shockingly large number even go unpunished thereby

encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making

justice suffer by weakening the system's credibility. Of

course, it is not possible to lay down any cut and dry

formula relating to imposition of sentence but the

object of sentencing should be to see that the crime

does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as

also the society has the satisfaction that justice has

been done to it. In imposing sentences, in the absence

of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of

factors and after considering all those factors and

taking an overall view of the situation, impose

sentence which they consider to be an appropriate

one. Aggravating factors cannot be ignored and

similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be

taken into consideration.

15. In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a

given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime;

the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and

unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of

appropriate punishment is the manner in which the

courts respond to the society's cry for justice against

the criminals. Justice demands that courts should

impose punishment befitting to the crime so that the

courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The

courts must not only keep in view the rights of the

criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and

12

the society at large while considering imposition of

appropriate punishment.”

9. While considering this aspect, the Supreme Court

in Mahesh v. State of M.P. [(1987) 3 SCC 80 : 1987

SCC (Cri) 379 : (1987) 2 SCR 710] remarked that:

(SCC p. 82, para 6)

“6. … it will be a mockery of justice to permit these

appellants to escape the extreme penalty of law when

faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give

the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to

render the justicing system of this country suspect.

The common man will lose faith in courts. In such

cases, he understands and appreciates the language of

deterrence more than the reformative jargon. When we

say this, we do not ignore the need for a reformative

approach in the sentencing process.”

10. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar [(2013) 9 SCC 516 :

(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 159] this Court has observed that:

(SCC p. 521, para 10)

“10. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the

relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence.

The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this

enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which

must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The

punishment awarded should be directly proportionate

to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The

benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the

Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict.”

This Court further observed that: (Hazara Singh

case [(2013) 9 SCC 516 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 159] , SCC

p. 521, para 11)

“11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that

the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the

crime he has committed and it should be

proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court

has repeatedly stressed the central role of

proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous

cases.”

11. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2006)

2 SCC 359 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 499] the Apex Court

opined that: (SCC pp. 361-62, paras 7-8)

13

“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.’ 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.

8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate

sentence would do more harm to the justice system to

undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law

and society could not long endure under such serious

threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to

award proper sentence having regard to the nature of

the offence and the manner in which it was executed

or committed, etc.”

12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed

Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of

Gujarat [(2009) 7 SCC 254 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 368]

observed as follows: (SCC p. 281, paras 99-100)

“99. … The object of awarding appropriate sentence

should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal

14

from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law

by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that

the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to

impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of

the society and the sentencing process has to be stern

where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing

meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view

merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such

offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long

run and against the interest of society which needs to

be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence

inbuilt in the sentencing system.

100. Justice demands that courts should impose

punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect

public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only

keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the

society at large while considering the imposition of

appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its

duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a

crime which has been committed not only against the

individual victim but also against the society to which

both the criminal and the victim belong.”

13. We again reiterate in this case that undue

sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do

more harm to the justice system to undermine the

public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of

every court to award proper sentence having regard to

the nature of the offence and the manner in which it

was executed or committed. The sentencing 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. The court must not only

keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but

also the society at large while considering the

imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre

sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time

without considering the degree of the offence will be

counterproductive in the long run and against the

interest of the society.

14. In a recent decision in State of

M.P. v. Bablu [(2014) 9 SCC 281 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 1]

15

, after considering and following the earlier decisions,

this Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that

one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the

imposition of adequate, just, proportionate

punishment which is commensurate with the gravity,

nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is

committed. One should keep in mind the social

interest and conscience of the society while

considering the determinative factor of sentence with

gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so

lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It

is, therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a

proper balance while awarding the sentence as

awarding lesser sentence encourages any criminal

and, as a result of the same, the society suffers.

5.4 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Surendra Singh (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court interfering with the sentence imposed by the learned

Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court by

showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable

and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence

while maintaining the conviction for the offence under

Section 304A of IPC from two years RI to eight months SI

16

is hereby quashed and set aside. The sentence imposed by

the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate

Court (learned Sessions Court) is hereby restored. Now the

accused be taken into custody to undergo the remaining

sentence. The accused is granted four weeks’ time to

surrender. Present appeal is accordingly, allowed.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

MARCH 28, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

17