http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RATAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/10/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1980 AIR   84            1980 SCR  (1) 846  1979 SCC  (4) 719

ACT:      Indian Penal  Code-S. 304A-Rash  and negligent driving- Sentence of TWO years rigorous imprisonment-If excessive.      Sentencing-Punishment for  driving  offences-Policy  of correction-Course  for   better  driving-occasional  parole- Legislative action-Necessity.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner,  a driver,  of a  heavy automobile, was sentenced to  two years  rigorous imprisonment under s. 304A IPC for having killed a scooterist by his rash and negligent driving of  the vehicle.  The petitioners  plea that someone else was  responsible for  the accident  was rejected by the trial and appellate courts.      on the question whether the sentence was excessive, ^      HELD: Rashness  and negligence  are relative  concepts, not absolute  abstractions. The  law under  s. 304A  IPC and under the  rubric of  negligence, must  have regard  to  the fatal frequency  of rash  driving of heavy duty vehicles and of speeding  menaces. It  is fair,  therefore, to  apply the role of  res ipsa  loquitur with  care. When a life has been lost  And   the  circumstances  of  driving  are  harsh,  no compassion can be shown. [848 A-B, D]      The  petitioner   deserves  no   consideration  on  the question of conviction and sentence. [848 C]           [(a) Sentencing  must have a policy of correction.      When the  punishment is for driving offences, the State      should attach a course for better driving together with      a livelier  sense of  responsibility and in the case of      men  with   poor  families,   the  State  may  consider      occasional parole and reformatory course. [848 E-F]           (b) Victim reparation is still the vanishing point      of criminal  law. The  victims of  the crime,  and  the      distress of  dependents of the prisoner, do not attract      the attention of the law. This deficiency in the system      must be rectified by the Legislature [848-G]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(Crl.) No. 953 of 1979.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  13-10-1978 of  the Punjab and  Haryana High  Court in Crl. Revision No. 1021 of 1978.      A. S. Sohl and R. C. Kohli for the Petitioner.      The order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-This petition for special leave under Art. 136  is by  a truck  driver whose  lethal hands  at the wheel of  an heavy  automobile  has  taken  the  life  of  a scooterist-a deadly spectacle 847 becoming so  common these days in our towns and cities. This is a  Case which  is more  a portent  than an  event and  is symbolic  of  the  callous  yet  tragic  traffic  chaos  and treacherous unsafety  of public transportation-the besetting sin of  our highways  which are  more like  fatal facilities than means  of mobility.  More people  die of road accidents than by  most diseases,  so much  so the Indian highways are among the  top killers  of the  country. What  with frequent complaints  of the State’s misfeasance in the maintenance of roads  in   good  trim,   the  absence  of  public  interest litigation to call state transport to order, and the lack of citizens’ tort  consciousness, and  what with the neglect in legislating into law no-fault liability and the induction on the roads  of heavy duty vehicles beyond the capabilities of the  highways   system,  Indian  Transport  is  acquiring  a menacing reputation  which makes  travel a tryst with Death. It looks  as if  traffic regulations  are virtually dead and police  checking   mostly  absent.  By  these  processes  of lawlessness, public  roads are  now lurking death traps. The State must  rise to the gravity of the situation and provide road safety  measures through  active police presence beyond frozen  indifference,   through  mobilisation   of   popular organisations in  the  field  of  road  safety,  frightening publicity for  gruesome accidents,  and promotion  of strict driving licensing  and rigorous  vehicle invigilation,  lest human life should hardly have a chance for highway use.      These  strong   observations  have   become  imperative because of  the escalating  statistics of  road  casualties. Many dangerous  drivers plead  in court,  with success, that someone else  is at  fault. In the present case, such a plea was put  forward with a realistic touch but rightly rejected by the  courts below. Parking of heavy vehicles on the wrong side, hurrying  past traffic  signals on the sly, neglecting to keep to the left of the road, driving vehicles crisscross often in a spirituous state, riding scooters without helmets and with whole families on pillions, thoughtless cycling and pedestrian jay  walking with  lawless ease, suffocating jam- packing of  stage carriages  and hell-driving of mini-buses, overloading of  trucks with  perilous projections and, above all, police  man, if  any, proving by helpless presence that law is  dead in  this milieu  charged with melee-such is the daily, hourly  scene of summons by Death to innocent persons who take  to the  roads, believing  in the  bonafide of  the traffic laws.  We hope  that every  State in India will take note of  the  human  price  of  highway  neglect,  of  State transport violations and the like, with a sombre sensitivity and reverence for life.      This, however,  does not  excuse the  accused from  his rash driving  of a  ’blind Leviathan in berserk locomotion’. If we  may adapt  the words of Lord Green M.R.: ’It scarcely lies in the mouth of 848 the truck  driver who  plays with  fire to complain of burnt fingers’. Rashness and negligence are relative concepts, not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

absolute abstractions.  In our  current conditions,  the law under sec.  304-A IPC  and under  the rubric  of Negligence, must have  due regard to the fatal frequency of rash driving of heavy duty vehicles and of speeding menaces. Thus viewed, it is  fair to  apply the  rule of  res  ipsa  loquitur,  of course,  with  care.  Conventional  defences,  except  under compelling evidence,  must break  down before  the pragmatic Court and  must be  given short  shrift. Looked at from this angle, we  are convinced  that the  present case deserves no consideration on the question of conviction.      Counsel for petitioner has contended that a sentence of 2 years’  R.I. is excessive, especially having regard to the fact that  the petitioner has a large family to maintain and the proprietor of the truck has left his family in the cold. When a  life has  been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh,  no compassion  can be shown. We do not interfere with the  sentence, although  the owner is often not morally innocent.      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 1: 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  cases 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.      The victimisation of The family of the convict may well be a  reality and  is regrettable.  It is  a weakness of our jurisprudence  that  the  victims  of  the  crime,  and  the distress of  the dependents  of the prisoner, do not attract the attention of the law. Indeed, victim reparation is still the vanishing  point  of  our  criminal  law  !  This  is  a deficiency in  the system  which must  be rectified  by  the Legislature. We  can only  draw attention  to  this  matter. Hopefully, the  Welfare State will bestow better thought and action to  traffic justice  in the light of the observations we have made. We dismiss the special leave petition. N.V.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 849