The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to decrease a man’s sentence for causing a death by reckless and careless action was overturned by the Supreme Court, which held that it was unjustified to show the accused “undue pity.”
The supreme court noted that the high court had made no attempt to take into account the fact that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is primarily intended to punish criminals for offences committed in violation of the Code.
The high court had upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 304-A (causing death by rash and negligent act) of the IPC but had reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to a prior deposit of Rs 25,000 towards compensation to be paid to the family of the deceased. The state of Punjab had appealed the high court’s decision.
In its judgement on March 28, a panel of judges led by Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar noted that, in reducing the sentence, the high court had failed to take into account the seriousness of the offence and the way the accused committed it by recklessly and carelessly operating an SUV, resulting in the deaths of one person and injuries to two others who were riding in an ambulance.
“The high court also failed to recognise and take into account the fact that the ambulance turned turtle after colliding. This demonstrates the effect on the ambulance as well as the accused’s hasty and careless driving “It added that the trial court’s compelling justifications for the two-year prison term for the accused were stated in the statement.
An ambulance travelling from Chandigarh to Mohali was struck by an SUV being driven by the accused in a traffic accident that happened in January 2012.
The bench remarked that, in reference to a prior ruling by the highest court, it was noted that the top court has repeatedly stressed the need to severely penalise those who cause motor vehicle accidents.
The court took note of the observation and decided that it was important to keep in mind the concept of proportionality between the offence and punishment. According to it, the foundation of sentencing for a criminal offence is the idea of reasonable punishment.
The bench made reference to another ruling issued by the Supreme Court, noting that although the concept of sentencing recognises remedial measures, there are times when deterrence is a crucial need based on the circumstances of the case.
“The IPC’s punitive and deterrent aspect has not even been mentioned by the high court. Punishing criminals for crimes committed under the IPC is the primary goal and objective “declared the supreme court.
The impugned judgement and order passed by the high court interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court by showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside, it said, applying the law established by this court to the facts of the case at hand.
The bench reinstated the sentence imposed by the trial court and overturned the high court’s decision to reduce the term.
Although granting the appeal, it gave the accused four weeks to turn himself in and serve the remaining term.
