Swapna Halder v. For the State

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 537 of 2006, arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 121 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad has been pleased to hold the petitioner guilty for the offence under punishable Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and has further been pleased to sentence her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

#2. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision is that on 17.02.2006, at about 7.30 a.m, one Bipin Bihari Pal aged about 17 years while going toward Bistipada one maruti car bearing registration no. JH 10D 8689 being driven by the petitioner very rashly and negligently dashed the said Bipin Bihari Pal near Lindsay Club Road. The injured sustained crushed injury on the head and in the course of treatment at Central Hospital succumbed to the injuries.

#3. In connection with above accident FIR was lodged for the offences vide Dhanbad P.S. Case No.121 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The learned trial court has held the appellant guilty and sentenced her to undergo S.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, S.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, SI of one year for offence under 338 of the Indian Penal Code and SI for a period of two years for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The criminal appeal no. 200 of 2012 preferred against the aforesaid Judgment of trial court was also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of petitioner.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings on the following grounds:- (i) Petitioner is suffering from orthopedic problems and for that reason she was operated in the year 2013, still her condition is deteriorating day by day. (ii) This revision petition was admitted for final hearing only on the limited question of sentence. The petitioner is a women suffering from severe disease and the alleged accident happened in a sudden manner while 2 Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2015 she was driving the vehicle very moderately and carefully and the deceased swerved his bicycle suddenly and was dashed. In connection with above accident, Motor Accident claims case was also lodged before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and the legal heirs of deceased have been adequately compensated. (iii) The accident has happened in the year 2006 and more than 18 years have been lapsed. Sending the sick and infirm lady petitioner for serving substantive sentence of imprisonment will serve no useful purpose or any deterrent in the facts and circumstances of this case. Under such circumstances, petitioner may be extended the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

#5. On the other hand, learned PP for State as well as learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the above contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that it is a case of death of sole son of the victim parents, who was studying in BA part 2 and only 17 years old. The manner of occurrence reveals that the deceased came under the wheels and badly crushed by head and all hope and aspirations of the family members were vanished within three days of the said accident, when he succumbed to injuries. The safety and security of public life is of prime importance, hence, petitioner does not deserve any linency in the matter of sentence and does not deserve the benefit of provisions of probation of Offenders Act,

#1958. This Revision dismissed. Learned APP has placed reliance upon reported Judgment in the case of State of Punjab versus Dil Bahadur reported in (2023) SCC

#6. I have gone through the Judgment and orders of both the court below and also considered the respective points of argument raised on behalf 3 Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2015 of learned counsel for respective parties and also taken note of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the matter of award of sentence.

#7. In the case of The State Of Punjab (Supra) as relied upon by the opposite party, pertaining to a case under Section 279 and 304A IPC, the accused was driving the Scorpio 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 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. In the above case upon appeal before the High Court the sentence of the accused was reduced to the extent of eight months SI with compensation for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The mater went upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the above scenario the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that principal aim and object to punish offender for offences committed under Section 279 and 304A IPC can be invoked only, if act of the accused is negligent and rash. Need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accident with rapidly increasing motorization, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities, 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. The principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind. Principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. While reducing the sentence, the high Court has not at all considered the gravity of 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 4 Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2015 life and two persons were travelling in the ambulance sustained injuries. Impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence while maintaining the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code from two years to eight months. SI was quashed and set aside.

#8. In the Case of Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar & Ors. 2013 (9) SCC 516, it was observed that it is duty of the Court 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. It was further observed that 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.

#9. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court at para 7 and 8 as under: 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 5 Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2015 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. 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.

#10. In the instant case, there is a lady driver punished for the offences U/s 279, 304A I.P.C. The accident happened in a sudden manner when a boy of 17 years driving bicycle came under wheels of car driven by the petitioner. The victims have been adequately compensated under motor vehicle claim case. The petitioner is a women and suffering from severe disease and operated. Accident took place about 18 years ago. Both parties restored to normal activities in life. In the aforementioned circumstances a balance has to be striked between conflicting interest of public safety and circumstances of the 6 Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2015 convict petitioner. Therefore, having regard to attending facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by convict, her age, character, health and antecedents it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner instead of undergoing Substantive Sentence of imprisonment.

#11. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence passed by learned court below. Petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of learned trial court with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond, instead of undergoing the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. In case of violation of terms and conditions of bond, the petitioner shall be called upon by the learned trial court to serve the sentence of imprisonment as awarded by leaned trial court. Petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this order receipt or production of copy the order before trial court for furnishing the required bond.

#12. Let the copy of this order along with Trial Court of Record be sent back for information and needful.

#13. I.A. No. 67 of 2017 & I.A. No. 3145 of 2015 stands disposed off. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 15 /05/2024 Rajnish/- N.A.F.R. 7 Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2015