Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (SC) BS25910
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1152 of 2000). D/d. 4.5.2000

Dalbir Singh - Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Surya Kant, Advocate.

A. Indian Penal Code, Sections 304A and 279 - Accused a bus driver knocked down a cyclist who had just come out of office - Incident happened where offices were located - There is need to be greatly circumspect while driving motor vehicles which was not adhered to by the accused and such carelessness resulted in death of a young man - Conviction upheld.

[Para 4]

B. Indian Penal Code, Sections 304A and 279 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 4 Accused causing death of a young man by rash and negligent driving - Accused convicted under Section 304A Indian Penal Code - Court cannot treat the nature of offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code as attracting benevolent provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act - This is the role which Courts can play for lessening high rate motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.

[Para 13]

C. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 4 Grant of probation to convict - Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act can be resorted to when Court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of offence, and the Court forms its opinion that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct.

[Para 10]

Cases Referred :-

Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 Supple. SCC 17.

State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2233.

State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, 1987(1) SCC 538.

JUDGMENT

K.T. Thomas, J. - 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 deterrent element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolic.

2. A man who drove a stage carriage knocked down a cyclist who succumbed to his injuries. The said driver was convicted of the offence relating to rash or negligent driving and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His appeal and revision were dismissed by the Sessions Court and the High Court respectively. He has now come up with the special leave petition. Leave is granted.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we did not feel the necessity to wait for the arguments on behalf of the respondent-State. So we did not issue notice to the State.

4. Appellant was driving a bus which belonged to Haryana Roadways. It was on 4.7.1994 at 6.15 P.M. that the cyclist was knocked down in front of the main gate of the Board of School Education at Bhiwani. The cyclist was just going out of the office of the Board where he was working. The bus, after hitting him down, dragged him for some distance. He was crushed to death. The driver was convicted under Section 279 and Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and one year respectively under the above two counts. He made a two-fold plea in the trial Court. One was that he was not the person who drove the vehicle. The other was that the accident happened due to the negligence of the cyclist. Both the pleas were repelled by the trial Court and the Sessions Court. On the positive side both the said Courts found that the incident happened within the town area whereat offices are situated and hence the need to be greatly circumspect while driving motor vehicles was not adhered to by the appellant and such carelessness resulted in the instantaneous death of a young man who was crushed under the wheels of the vehicle. The revision filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed in limine.

5. Learned counsel pleaded for invocation of the benevolent provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short "the PO Act").

6. As a precedent learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 Supple. SCC 17. But we may point out that the two-Judge Bench, which extended the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O. Act to the accused in that case, made it clear that such a course was resorted to "having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case". None of the peculiar circumstances has been specified in the decision except that the negligence on the part of the driver in that case was only contributory. The said decision, therefore, cannot be treated as an authority to support the contention that the Court should, as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the PO Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving.

7. The conditions for applying Section 4 of the PO Act have been delineated in the commencing portion of the provisions in the following words :

8. Parliament made it clear that only if the Court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the nature of the offence".

9. Thus Parliament has left it to the Court to decide when and how the Court should form such opinion. It provided sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient. The word "expedient" had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament in the Section so as to mean it as "apt and suitable to the end in view." In Balck's Law Dictionary the word expedient is defined as "suitable and appropriate for accomplishment of specified object" besides the other meaning referred to earlier. In State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2233 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has considered the word "expedient". Learned Judges have observed in paragraph 21 thus :

10. It was then held that the Court must construe the said word in keeping with the context and object of the provisions in its widest amplitude. Here the word "expedient" is used in Section 4 of the PO Act in the context of casting a duty on the Court to take into account "the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence......". This means Section 4 can be resorted to when the Court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the offence, and the Court forms its opinion that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct.

11. Courts must bear in mind that when any plea is made based on Section 4 of the PO Act for application to a convicted person under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, that road accidents have proliferated to alarming extent and the toll is galloping up day-by-day in India, and that no solution is in sight nor suggested by any quarters to bring them down. When this Court lamented two decades ago that "more people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country" the saturation of accidents toll was not even half of what it is today. So V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., has suggested in the said decision thus :

12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, 1987(1) SCC 538 this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under Section 304A Indian Penal Code to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine.

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 304A Indian Penal Code as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO 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 vehicle he cannot escape from 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.

14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our inability to lean to the benevolent provision to Section 4 of the PO Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.