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

Others

1

and Guru Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa v.

State of Karnataka

2

.

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 Uttarakhand

3

and a recent judgment in Criminal Appeal

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

4

.

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 Haryana

5

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 Haryana

6

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 Karnataka

7

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 Punjab

8

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. Krishna

9

, Sevaka Perumal v. State of

T.N.

10

, Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of

Gujarat

11

, State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa

Basanagouda Aregoudar

12

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 Saleem

13

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

Maharashtra

15

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 Gujarat

16

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