Head Notes

Allowing the appeal in part, the court

HELD: 1.1. Section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860. applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to causes where death has been voluntarily caused. This Section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act.

[Para 5] [1145-b-c]

1.2. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genes of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. [Para 5] [1145-c-d]

Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecution, (1937) AC 576, referred to.

2. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. Culpable negligences lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In a criminal case, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. The question whether the conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. [Para 6] [1145-h; 1146-a-c]

3. "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury. The criminality in such a case lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the change has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. [Para 7] [1146-d-e]

In Re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad H.C.R.119, referred to.

4. When the factual scenario of the present case is analyzed, it is crystal clear that the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304A IPC and not under Section 304 Part II IPC. Conviction is accordingly altered. The maximum sentences which can be imposed for an offence punishable under Section 304A is two years with fine or with both. The custodial sentences, therefore, is reduced to the maximum i.e. two years.

[Para 19] [1150-g]

Venkat Subramaniam T.R. and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellant.

R. Sathish and M.T. George for the Respondent.

Subject

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 304A-Causing death by negligence-Negligence and rashness-Essential attributes of-Distinction between knowledge and intention-A boy aged 10 years was run over by a bus driven by the accused-Trial court found that no intention had been proved but, at the same time, held that the accused acted with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death-Hence, the accused was convicted under S.304 part II-High Court confirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held:S.304A applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused-This section does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death-A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately-Negligence is the genes of which rashness is the species-Negligence and rashness are essential elements under S.304A-Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care-Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk-In a criminal case, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors-Whether the conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case-Criminal rashness means an act done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused-On facts, conviction is under S.304A and not under S.304 Part II-Conviction altered to one under S.304A.

Words and Phrases:

"negligence" and "rashness"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860.

According to the prosecution, a boy aged 10 years was run over by a bus driven by the appellant-accused. During the investigation it was revealed that the bus was being driven with a very high speed and therefore, the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The trial court found that no intention had been proved in the case, but, at the same time, held that the accused acted with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Hence, the trial court held that the act committed by the appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The High Court did not accept the stand that the case was covered under Section 304A IPC and confirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal.

Citation

2007 AIR 2378, 2007(7 )SCR1141, , 2007(8 )SCALE605 , 2007(9 )JT346

Judgement

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 775 of 2005

PETITIONER:

Prabhakaran

RESPONDENT:

State of Kerala

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/06/2007

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the

learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. By the

impugned order the appellant was found guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short 'IPC'). Learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, had

convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court found the same to be

in order. Custodial sentence of five years was confirmed.

2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A boy aged 10 years residing in a hostel of the Tribal

Welfare Department, while he was a student of 4th standard in

a nearby school, was run over by a bus driven by the appellant

in the middle of the road. The investigation by the police

revealed that there was evidence to the effect that even the

passengers in the bus were alarmed of the enormous speed in

which it was being driven and had cautioned the driver to stop

even crying, as they had seen the school children crossing the

road in a queue. The investigation also revealed that even the

children crossing the road had raised both hands for stopping

the vehicle. The passengers and pedestrians were of the view

that the bus was being driven at a high speed and that they

had cried aloud to stop the bus. It was, in spite of all these,

that the bus ran over the said student on his head and the

bus could be stopped only 15 to 20 feet ahead of the spot of

occurrence. In the light of the said evidence, the investigating

officer felt that there was real intention on the part of the

appellant/driver of the bus to cause death of persons to whom

harm may be caused by reason of hitting the bus and he was

charged with offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The

court below found that no intention had been proved in the

case. But, at the same time, the accused acted with the

knowledge that it was likely to cause death. So, the act

committed by the appellant was culpable homicide not

amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II

IPC. Convicting him for the said offence, he was sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine

of Rs.15,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for

three years. This was assailed in appeal.

3. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea of

the appellant that the accused had not caused death either

with the intention of causing death or with the intention to

cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the

knowledge that he is likely to cause such act to cause the

death. It was submitted that case is covered under Section

304A IPC. Same was not accepted. So, it was held that this is

a case of culpable homicide. It accepted the stand of the

respondent-State that conviction is to be made for culpable

homicide.

4. The respective stand taken before the High Court was re-

iterated in this appeal.

5. Section 304A speaks of causing death by negligence.

This section applies to rash and negligence acts and does not

apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This

section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an

intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all

probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which

without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by

what is described as a rash and negligent act. A negligent act

is an act done without doing something which a reasonable

man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily

regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a

prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances

attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately.

Negligence is the genes, of which rashness is the species. It

has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is

done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences

may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in

Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at

p.583 = 2 All E.R. 552) observed as under:

"Simple lack of care such as will constitute

civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the

criminal law there are degrees of negligence;

and a very high degree of negligence is

required to be proved before the felony is

established. Probably of all the epithets that

can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly

covers the case. It is difficult to visualize a

case of death caused by reckless driving in the

connotation of that term in ordinary speech

which would not justify a conviction for

manslaughter; but it is probably not all

embracing, for 'recklessness' suggests an

indifference to risk whereas the accused may

have appreciated the risk and intended to

avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted

to avoid the risk such a high degree of

negligence as would justify a conviction."

6. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no

intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done

in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at

offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The

provision applies only to such acts which are rash and

negligent and are directly cause of death of another person.

Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section

304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise

reasonable and proper care and the extent of its

reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of

each case. Rashness means doing an act with the

consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but

with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty

imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of

negligence are determining factors. A question whether the

accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or

negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the

amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and

reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all

the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means

hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that

it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it

may cause injury but done without any intention to cause

injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.

7. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a

dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and

that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in

running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or

indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on

the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to

exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to

guard against injury either to the public generally or to an

individual in particular, which, having regard to all the

circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the

imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by

Holloway J. in these words:

''Culpable rashness is acting with the

consciousness that the mischievous and

illegal consequences may follow, but with the

hope that they will not, and often with the

belief that the actor has taken sufficient

precautions to prevent their happening. The

imputability arises from acting despite the

consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting

without the consciousness that the illegal and

mischievous effect will follow, but In

circumstances which show that the actor has

not exercised the caution incumbent upon

him and that if he had, he would have had

the consciousness. The imputability arises

from the negligence of the civic duty of

circumspection." (See In re: Nidamorti

Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. H.C.R. 119)

9. Vehicular accidents resulting in deaths and injuries are

spiraling.

10. The Editorial under the heading "Road Traffic Injuries &

fatalities in India # a modern epidemic" in Indian J. Med. Res.

123, January 2006 contains some interesting observations.

The relevant portions read as follows:

"The United Nations General Assembly

adopted a resolution on road safety on October

26, 2005 which invites Member States to

implement the recommendations of the World

Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention; to

participate in the first United Nations Global

Road Safety Week; and to recognize the third

Sunday in November of every year as the World

Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims'.

This resolution follows the publication of The

World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention

by the World Health Organization in 2004. This

report highlights the fact that all over the world

working age people are more likely to suffer

hospitalization, permanent disability and death

due to road traffic injuries than most other

diseases. The situation in India is not very

different.

About 82,000 persons were killed on

Indian roads in 2002. Official statistics

regarding serious injuries are not reliable as

they underestimate the actual number, but it

is estimated that the number of people

hospitalized may be 15-20 times the number

killed. In a do-nothing scenario, it is possible

that India will have 1,20,000 - 1,30,000 road

traffic fatalities in the year 2008 and possibly

1,50,000 - 1,75,000 in 2015. Our vision

should aim at reducing the fatalities to less

than 1,00,000 in the short term (2008) and

less than 70,000 in the long term (2015).

Safety measures for the near future

Motor vehicle occupants: (i) Enforcement

of seatbelt use laws countrywide; (ii)

restricting travel in front seat of cars by

children has the potential of reducing injuries

dramatically; and (iii) bus and truck occupant

injuries, fatalities, and injuries caused to

other road users can be reduced significantly

by enforcing strict observance of speed limit

regulations on highways. Ensuring that bus

timetables and truck movement schedules

make it possible for drivers to observe speed

limits with ease. Random speed checking on

highways would help ensure such measures.

Road safety strategies - Long term

Traffic calming and speed control: (i)

Aim at implementing speed control and traffic

calming measures in all urban areas and at

appropriate locations on rural highways by

altering road design, vehicle monitoring

through intelligent transport systems, and

vehicle design by the year 2015. This measure

is likely to give us the maximum savings in

terms of lives and serious injuries; and (ii)

segregated lanes for vulnerable road users

and buses in urban areas. Non-motorized

transport and buses must be provided

segregated lanes on all major arterial roads in

urban areas. India specific designs need to be

developed and phase wise implementation

plans drawn up for all cities.

xxx xxx xxx

Vehicle safely: (i) All vehicles sold in

India should meet international

crashworthiness standards by 2010; (ii) all

buses and trucks should meet pedestrian

impact standards by 2010; (iii) all urban

buses to have low floors and automatic

closing doors; (iv) crashworthiness standards

must be developed for all indigenous vehicles

by 2010 and implemented by 2012; (v)

installation of Intelligent Transport Systems

(ITS) and other modern safety devices for

assisting and controlling drivers; and (vi)

driving under the influence of alcohol and

other drugs. A long term strategy to reduce

drinking and driving incidence to less than 10

per cent of all crashes needs to be drawn up

for the next 10 yr. Sensitization of the public

to the extent of the problem. Institution of

random roadblocks and checking on urban

roads and rural highways. Ignition interlock

on cars."

11. In "Global Road Safety" certain revealing data have also

been provided. They read as follows:-

"THE COMING PLAGUE OF ROAD TRAFFIC

INJURIES: A PREVENTABLE BURDEN FOR

RICH AND POOR COUNTRIES".

12. Almost 1.2 million people are killed each year and 20-50

million are injured or disabled, most people are unaware that

road traffic injuries are a leading cause of death and disability.

13. In developing countries, death rates from vehicle crashes

are rising, and disproportionately high in relation to the

number of crashes. According to a report published in 2000

# Developing and transitional countries cumulatively

represent over 85 percent of all road traffic deaths

# Kenya has nearly 2,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes.

Vietnam has over 3,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes.

# 44% of all road traffic deaths occur in the Asia/Pacific

area, which only has 16 % of the total number of motor

vehicles.

# At 71,495 and 59,927 total deaths, China and India,

respectively, had the highest number of road fatalities in the

world in 1995.-

# Pedestrian deaths represent 62 % of all traffic fatalities

in Lebanon. In most developing countries vulnerable road

users, including pedestrians, bicycle and motor cycle riders,

account for the majority of all fatalities.

# Eastern European countries represent 6% of motor

vehicles, but 11% of crash fatalities worldwide.

# The Latin America/Caribbean region has the second

highest crash costs behind Asia.

14. As vehicle use in developing countries are increasing,

road traffic injuries are expected to become the third leading

cause of death and disability worldwide by 2020. In developing

countries, each vehicle is much more lethal than the vehicles

in developed countries, because it most frequently takes the

lives not of vehicle occupants, but of vulnerable road users:

pedestrians, cyclists. Many developing countries are

increasing the rate of motorized vehicle use at up to 18% per

year. In India, for example, there has been a 23% increase in

the number of vehicles from 1990-1999 and a 60-fold increase

is predicted by 2050.

15. The human toll in such accidents is tragic. Survivors and

family members are affected not only by an immediate death

or disability, but also lifetime psychological and physical

suffering. Crashes often result in orphans, and some victims,

as young as infants, spend the rest of their lives with medical

facilities.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

16. In addition to the devastating human toll, the economic

impact of road crashes is also enormous. Many of those

injured or killed are wage earners, leaving families destitute

and without means of support. Loss of wages, property

damage, and other factors affected by road traffic crashes

represented 4.6% of the gross national product of the United

States in 1994. In developing countries, road traffic crashes

represent 3-5% of the GNP. 'The estimated annual cost of road

traffic crashes in developing countries exceeds $100 billion

(US). This amounts to nearly double the total combined

development assistance these countries receive every year

from bilateral and multi-lateral government organizations.

Globally, the estimated annual costs of road crashes are 500

billion (US).

THIS PROBLEM IS PREVENTABLE

17. We have the tools needed to combat this epidemic. In the

developed nations, proven methods such as enforcement of

laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,

reducing speed limits, and requiring seat belts and restraints

have shown significant reduction in traffic fatalities. Road

design and road environment, vehicle design, and road safety

standards are also strategies that successfully address traffic

safety. For maximum impact of RTI's, a systems approach

with multiple, scientifically proven prevention techniques must

be employed. Education alone has been shown to be less

effective, and often ineffective.

18. Proven interventions for developed countries require

research, modification, and testing for developing countries.

For example, developing countries face poorly designed and

maintained roadways, unsafe vehicles, drivers under the

influence of drugs or alcohol, lack of national policies, and

inadequate enforcement. Success will require significant new

resources supported by sustained political commitment.

19. When the factual scenario of the present case is

analysed, it is crystal clear that the appropriate conviction

would be under Section 304 A IPC and not Section 304 Part II

IPC. Conviction is accordingly altered. The maximum sentence

which can be imposed for offence punishable under Section

304A is two years with fine or with both. The custodial

sentence, therefore, is reduced to the maximum i.e. two years.

20. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State that

in a case of this nature two years sentence is grossly

inadequate. There is substance in this submission considering

the increasing number of vehicular accidents resulting in

death of large number of innocent persons. It is for the

legislature to provide for an appropriate sentence. But the

statute presently provides for a maximum sentence of two

years.

21. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Head Notes

Allowing the appeal in part, the court

HELD: 1.1. Section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860. applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to causes where death has been voluntarily caused. This Section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act.

[Para 5] [1145-b-c]

1.2. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genes of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. [Para 5] [1145-c-d]

Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecution, (1937) AC 576, referred to.

2. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. Culpable negligences lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In a criminal case, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. The question whether the conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. [Para 6] [1145-h; 1146-a-c]

3. "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury. The criminality in such a case lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the change has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. [Para 7] [1146-d-e]

In Re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad H.C.R.119, referred to.

4. When the factual scenario of the present case is analyzed, it is crystal clear that the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304A IPC and not under Section 304 Part II IPC. Conviction is accordingly altered. The maximum sentences which can be imposed for an offence punishable under Section 304A is two years with fine or with both. The custodial sentences, therefore, is reduced to the maximum i.e. two years.

[Para 19] [1150-g]

Venkat Subramaniam T.R. and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellant.

R. Sathish and M.T. George for the Respondent.

Subject

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 304A-Causing death by negligence-Negligence and rashness-Essential attributes of-Distinction between knowledge and intention-A boy aged 10 years was run over by a bus driven by the accused-Trial court found that no intention had been proved but, at the same time, held that the accused acted with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death-Hence, the accused was convicted under S.304 part II-High Court confirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held:S.304A applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused-This section does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death-A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately-Negligence is the genes of which rashness is the species-Negligence and rashness are essential elements under S.304A-Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care-Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk-In a criminal case, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors-Whether the conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case-Criminal rashness means an act done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused-On facts, conviction is under S.304A and not under S.304 Part II-Conviction altered to one under S.304A.

Words and Phrases:

"negligence" and "rashness"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860.

According to the prosecution, a boy aged 10 years was run over by a bus driven by the appellant-accused. During the investigation it was revealed that the bus was being driven with a very high speed and therefore, the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The trial court found that no intention had been proved in the case, but, at the same time, held that the accused acted with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Hence, the trial court held that the act committed by the appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The High Court did not accept the stand that the case was covered under Section 304A IPC and confirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal.

Citation

2007 AIR 2378, 2007(7 )SCR1141, , 2007(8 )SCALE605 , 2007(9 )JT346

Judgement

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 775 of 2005

PETITIONER:

Prabhakaran

RESPONDENT:

State of Kerala

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/06/2007

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the

learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. By the

impugned order the appellant was found guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short 'IPC'). Learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, had

convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court found the same to be

in order. Custodial sentence of five years was confirmed.

2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A boy aged 10 years residing in a hostel of the Tribal

Welfare Department, while he was a student of 4th standard in

a nearby school, was run over by a bus driven by the appellant

in the middle of the road. The investigation by the police

revealed that there was evidence to the effect that even the

passengers in the bus were alarmed of the enormous speed in

which it was being driven and had cautioned the driver to stop

even crying, as they had seen the school children crossing the

road in a queue. The investigation also revealed that even the

children crossing the road had raised both hands for stopping

the vehicle. The passengers and pedestrians were of the view

that the bus was being driven at a high speed and that they

had cried aloud to stop the bus. It was, in spite of all these,

that the bus ran over the said student on his head and the

bus could be stopped only 15 to 20 feet ahead of the spot of

occurrence. In the light of the said evidence, the investigating

officer felt that there was real intention on the part of the

appellant/driver of the bus to cause death of persons to whom

harm may be caused by reason of hitting the bus and he was

charged with offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The

court below found that no intention had been proved in the

case. But, at the same time, the accused acted with the

knowledge that it was likely to cause death. So, the act

committed by the appellant was culpable homicide not

amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II

IPC. Convicting him for the said offence, he was sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine

of Rs.15,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for

three years. This was assailed in appeal.

3. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea of

the appellant that the accused had not caused death either

with the intention of causing death or with the intention to

cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the

knowledge that he is likely to cause such act to cause the

death. It was submitted that case is covered under Section

304A IPC. Same was not accepted. So, it was held that this is

a case of culpable homicide. It accepted the stand of the

respondent-State that conviction is to be made for culpable

homicide.

4. The respective stand taken before the High Court was re-

iterated in this appeal.

5. Section 304A speaks of causing death by negligence.

This section applies to rash and negligence acts and does not

apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This

section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an

intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all

probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which

without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by

what is described as a rash and negligent act. A negligent act

is an act done without doing something which a reasonable

man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily

regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a

prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances

attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately.

Negligence is the genes, of which rashness is the species. It

has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is

done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences

may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in

Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at

p.583 = 2 All E.R. 552) observed as under:

"Simple lack of care such as will constitute

civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the

criminal law there are degrees of negligence;

and a very high degree of negligence is

required to be proved before the felony is

established. Probably of all the epithets that

can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly

covers the case. It is difficult to visualize a

case of death caused by reckless driving in the

connotation of that term in ordinary speech

which would not justify a conviction for

manslaughter; but it is probably not all

embracing, for 'recklessness' suggests an

indifference to risk whereas the accused may

have appreciated the risk and intended to

avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted

to avoid the risk such a high degree of

negligence as would justify a conviction."

6. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no

intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done

in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at

offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The

provision applies only to such acts which are rash and

negligent and are directly cause of death of another person.

Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section

304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise

reasonable and proper care and the extent of its

reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of

each case. Rashness means doing an act with the

consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but

with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty

imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of

negligence are determining factors. A question whether the

accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or

negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the

amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and

reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all

the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means

hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that

it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it

may cause injury but done without any intention to cause

injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.

7. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a

dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and

that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in

running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or

indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on

the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to

exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to

guard against injury either to the public generally or to an

individual in particular, which, having regard to all the

circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the

imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by

Holloway J. in these words:

''Culpable rashness is acting with the

consciousness that the mischievous and

illegal consequences may follow, but with the

hope that they will not, and often with the

belief that the actor has taken sufficient

precautions to prevent their happening. The

imputability arises from acting despite the

consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting

without the consciousness that the illegal and

mischievous effect will follow, but In

circumstances which show that the actor has

not exercised the caution incumbent upon

him and that if he had, he would have had

the consciousness. The imputability arises

from the negligence of the civic duty of

circumspection." (See In re: Nidamorti

Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. H.C.R. 119)

9. Vehicular accidents resulting in deaths and injuries are

spiraling.

10. The Editorial under the heading "Road Traffic Injuries &

fatalities in India # a modern epidemic" in Indian J. Med. Res.

123, January 2006 contains some interesting observations.

The relevant portions read as follows:

"The United Nations General Assembly

adopted a resolution on road safety on October

26, 2005 which invites Member States to

implement the recommendations of the World

Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention; to

participate in the first United Nations Global

Road Safety Week; and to recognize the third

Sunday in November of every year as the World

Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims'.

This resolution follows the publication of The

World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention

by the World Health Organization in 2004. This

report highlights the fact that all over the world

working age people are more likely to suffer

hospitalization, permanent disability and death

due to road traffic injuries than most other

diseases. The situation in India is not very

different.

About 82,000 persons were killed on

Indian roads in 2002. Official statistics

regarding serious injuries are not reliable as

they underestimate the actual number, but it

is estimated that the number of people

hospitalized may be 15-20 times the number

killed. In a do-nothing scenario, it is possible

that India will have 1,20,000 - 1,30,000 road

traffic fatalities in the year 2008 and possibly

1,50,000 - 1,75,000 in 2015. Our vision

should aim at reducing the fatalities to less

than 1,00,000 in the short term (2008) and

less than 70,000 in the long term (2015).

Safety measures for the near future

Motor vehicle occupants: (i) Enforcement

of seatbelt use laws countrywide; (ii)

restricting travel in front seat of cars by

children has the potential of reducing injuries

dramatically; and (iii) bus and truck occupant

injuries, fatalities, and injuries caused to

other road users can be reduced significantly

by enforcing strict observance of speed limit

regulations on highways. Ensuring that bus

timetables and truck movement schedules

make it possible for drivers to observe speed

limits with ease. Random speed checking on

highways would help ensure such measures.

Road safety strategies - Long term

Traffic calming and speed control: (i)

Aim at implementing speed control and traffic

calming measures in all urban areas and at

appropriate locations on rural highways by

altering road design, vehicle monitoring

through intelligent transport systems, and

vehicle design by the year 2015. This measure

is likely to give us the maximum savings in

terms of lives and serious injuries; and (ii)

segregated lanes for vulnerable road users

and buses in urban areas. Non-motorized

transport and buses must be provided

segregated lanes on all major arterial roads in

urban areas. India specific designs need to be

developed and phase wise implementation

plans drawn up for all cities.

xxx xxx xxx

Vehicle safely: (i) All vehicles sold in

India should meet international

crashworthiness standards by 2010; (ii) all

buses and trucks should meet pedestrian

impact standards by 2010; (iii) all urban

buses to have low floors and automatic

closing doors; (iv) crashworthiness standards

must be developed for all indigenous vehicles

by 2010 and implemented by 2012; (v)

installation of Intelligent Transport Systems

(ITS) and other modern safety devices for

assisting and controlling drivers; and (vi)

driving under the influence of alcohol and

other drugs. A long term strategy to reduce

drinking and driving incidence to less than 10

per cent of all crashes needs to be drawn up

for the next 10 yr. Sensitization of the public

to the extent of the problem. Institution of

random roadblocks and checking on urban

roads and rural highways. Ignition interlock

on cars."

11. In "Global Road Safety" certain revealing data have also

been provided. They read as follows:-

"THE COMING PLAGUE OF ROAD TRAFFIC

INJURIES: A PREVENTABLE BURDEN FOR

RICH AND POOR COUNTRIES".

12. Almost 1.2 million people are killed each year and 20-50

million are injured or disabled, most people are unaware that

road traffic injuries are a leading cause of death and disability.

13. In developing countries, death rates from vehicle crashes

are rising, and disproportionately high in relation to the

number of crashes. According to a report published in 2000

# Developing and transitional countries cumulatively

represent over 85 percent of all road traffic deaths

# Kenya has nearly 2,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes.

Vietnam has over 3,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes.

# 44% of all road traffic deaths occur in the Asia/Pacific

area, which only has 16 % of the total number of motor

vehicles.

# At 71,495 and 59,927 total deaths, China and India,

respectively, had the highest number of road fatalities in the

world in 1995.-

# Pedestrian deaths represent 62 % of all traffic fatalities

in Lebanon. In most developing countries vulnerable road

users, including pedestrians, bicycle and motor cycle riders,

account for the majority of all fatalities.

# Eastern European countries represent 6% of motor

vehicles, but 11% of crash fatalities worldwide.

# The Latin America/Caribbean region has the second

highest crash costs behind Asia.

14. As vehicle use in developing countries are increasing,

road traffic injuries are expected to become the third leading

cause of death and disability worldwide by 2020. In developing

countries, each vehicle is much more lethal than the vehicles

in developed countries, because it most frequently takes the

lives not of vehicle occupants, but of vulnerable road users:

pedestrians, cyclists. Many developing countries are

increasing the rate of motorized vehicle use at up to 18% per

year. In India, for example, there has been a 23% increase in

the number of vehicles from 1990-1999 and a 60-fold increase

is predicted by 2050.

15. The human toll in such accidents is tragic. Survivors and

family members are affected not only by an immediate death

or disability, but also lifetime psychological and physical

suffering. Crashes often result in orphans, and some victims,

as young as infants, spend the rest of their lives with medical

facilities.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

16. In addition to the devastating human toll, the economic

impact of road crashes is also enormous. Many of those

injured or killed are wage earners, leaving families destitute

and without means of support. Loss of wages, property

damage, and other factors affected by road traffic crashes

represented 4.6% of the gross national product of the United

States in 1994. In developing countries, road traffic crashes

represent 3-5% of the GNP. 'The estimated annual cost of road

traffic crashes in developing countries exceeds $100 billion

(US). This amounts to nearly double the total combined

development assistance these countries receive every year

from bilateral and multi-lateral government organizations.

Globally, the estimated annual costs of road crashes are 500

billion (US).

THIS PROBLEM IS PREVENTABLE

17. We have the tools needed to combat this epidemic. In the

developed nations, proven methods such as enforcement of

laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,

reducing speed limits, and requiring seat belts and restraints

have shown significant reduction in traffic fatalities. Road

design and road environment, vehicle design, and road safety

standards are also strategies that successfully address traffic

safety. For maximum impact of RTI's, a systems approach

with multiple, scientifically proven prevention techniques must

be employed. Education alone has been shown to be less

effective, and often ineffective.

18. Proven interventions for developed countries require

research, modification, and testing for developing countries.

For example, developing countries face poorly designed and

maintained roadways, unsafe vehicles, drivers under the

influence of drugs or alcohol, lack of national policies, and

inadequate enforcement. Success will require significant new

resources supported by sustained political commitment.

19. When the factual scenario of the present case is

analysed, it is crystal clear that the appropriate conviction

would be under Section 304 A IPC and not Section 304 Part II

IPC. Conviction is accordingly altered. The maximum sentence

which can be imposed for offence punishable under Section

304A is two years with fine or with both. The custodial

sentence, therefore, is reduced to the maximum i.e. two years.

20. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State that

in a case of this nature two years sentence is grossly

inadequate. There is substance in this submission considering

the increasing number of vehicular accidents resulting in

death of large number of innocent persons. It is for the

legislature to provide for an appropriate sentence. But the

statute presently provides for a maximum sentence of two

years.

21. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Head Notes

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 High Court has without considering the relevant aspects and even

without indicating any reason, waived the custodial sentence and imposed

only fine. The judgment therefore is clearly unsustainable. [Para 26]

[414-D]

1.2 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. [Para 21] [411-C]

Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu AIR 1991 SC 1463 - relied on.

1.3 After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each

case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an

offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which

a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of

really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such

act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. In the absence of any

foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to

correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of

gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is

the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. [Para

22] [413-A-D]

Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711

- referred to.

1.4 The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal

in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It

is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to

impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the

sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. [Para 23] [413-E]

1.5 Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social

order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact

of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity,

kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences

involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on

social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se

require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager

sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time

in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the

long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and

strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

[Para 24] [413-F-H; 414-A]

1.6 The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not

awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the

individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and

victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be

irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and

brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the

crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's

cry for justice against the criminal". [Para 25] [414-D]

2.1 Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause

death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause

death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections

299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and

negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and

rashness are essential elements u/s. 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the

failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its

reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil

consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. [Para 7] [406-

F-H]

2.2 A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a

reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate

the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable

man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a

negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which

rashness is the species. [Para 6] [405-G-H; 406-A-B]

Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 - referred to.

2.3 Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the

amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether

the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends

directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and

circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be

sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. [Para 7] [406-H;

407-A-B]

2.4 Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the

knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it

may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or know-

ledge that it would probably be caused. [Para 7] [407-B]

Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala 2007 (8) SCALE 605 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

2007 (8) SCALE 605 Referred to. Para 20

AIR 1991 SC 1463 Relied on. Para 21

402 US 183: 28

L.D. 2d 711 Referred to. Para 22

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2002

From the Judgement and Order dated 21.08.2000 of the High Court of

Karnataka, Criminal R. P. No. 64 of 1999.

Anil Kr. Mishra, A. Rohen Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla Sanjay R. Hegde, for the

Appellant.

S.N. Bhat, for the Respondent.

Subject

Sentence/Sentencing:

Sentence for imprisonment and fine for conviction u/ss. 279, 338 and 304 A

IPC - Reduction of by confining it to fine and waiving of custodial

imprisonment - On appeal, held: High court order not justified - Custodial

sentence was waived without indicating any reason - Order of trial court

restored - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 71

Award of Punishment - Criterion for determining - Discussed.

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-A - Applicability of - Discussed.

Words and Phrases - `Negligence' - Meaning of in the context of s. 304 A

IPC.

Trial court awarded imprisonment and imposed fine for conviction of the

respondent-accused u/ss. 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. High Court, in revision,

taking note of s. 71 IPC, waived the custodial sentence and imposed fine.

Hence the present appeal.

Judgement

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2002

State of Karnataka Appellant

Vs.

Muralidhar Respondent

JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Karnataka High Court allowing the Revision Petition filed by the

respondent. The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence

punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in short the `IPC') by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore.

For the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC the respondent was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. For the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The appeal was

dismissed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The respondent had been driving the bus on Ullal-Hejamadi route on

3.12.1995 at about 10.30 a.m. A tempo was coming from the opposite

direction. Both the vehicles rubbed through resulting in the right hand side

portion of the bus hitting the right hand side portion of the tempo, as a result

of which a boy sitting at that hind portion of the tempo died and one

passenger sustained grievous injuries. It was in respect of this accident that

the respondent came to be prosecuted and convicted.

The primary stand before the High Court was that the offences were

such that the accused should not be required to undergo imprisonment.

Accordingly, taking note of Section 71 IPC, High Court held that for the

offence under Section 338 IPC the accused was to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

with default stipulation and for the offence under Section 304-A the accused

was to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation and out of the total

2

amount of Rs.6,000/- a sum of Rs.5,000/- was to be paid to the father of the

deceased boy.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court

has not indicated any reason as to why this was not a fit case where

custodial sentence was not to be imposed. The High Court found that the

accused was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Sections

279, 338 and 304-A IPC. After having so observed without any basis or

reason the custodial sentence was waived and fines were imposed. It was

also noted that no separate sentence was necessary in respect of offence

under Section 279 IPC. It is submitted that the sentences should be

commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that

the occurrence took place long back and, therefore, taking the overall view

waived the custodial sentence and imposed fines.

5. In the instant case, 16 years old boy lost his life because of the rash

and negligent acts of the respondent.

6. Section 304A speaks of causing death by negligence. This section

applies to rash and negligence acts and does not apply to cases where death

has been voluntarily caused. This section obviously does not apply to cases

where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in

all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any

such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash

and negligent act. A negligent act is an act done without doing something

which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily

regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or

reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is

a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which

rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the

action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences

may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v.

Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583 = 2 All E.R. 552)

observed as under:

"Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability

is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are

degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of

negligence is required to be proved before the felony is

established. Probably of all the epithets that can be

applied `recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is

difficult to visualize a case of death caused by reckless

driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech

which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter;

but it is probably not all embracing, for `recklessness'

suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may

have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and

yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a

high degree of negligence as would justify a conviction."

7. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause

death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death.

The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and

300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and

negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and

rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence

lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its

reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil

consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a

breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of

negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's

conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on

the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a

prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all

the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a

dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton

and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any

intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.

8. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or

wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury.

The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act

with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal

negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to

exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against

injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which,

having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it

was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

9. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway J. in

these words:

``Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness

that the mischievous and illegal consequences may

follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often

with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient

precautions to prevent their happening. The

imputability arises from acting despite the

consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without

the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous

effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that

the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon

him and that if he had, he would have had the

consciousness. The imputability arises from the

negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In

re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. H.C.R. 119)

10. Vehicular accidents resulting in deaths and injuries are spiraling.

11. The Editorial under the heading "Road Traffic Injuries & fatalities in

India - a modern epidemic" in Indian J. Med. Res. 123, January 2006

contains some interesting observations. The relevant portions read as

follows:

"The United Nations General Assembly adopted a

resolution on road safety on October 26, 2005 which

invites Member States to implement the

recommendations of the World Report on Road Traffic

Injury Prevention; to participate in the first United

Nations Global Road Safety Week; and to recognize the

third Sunday in November of every year as the World

Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims'. This

resolution follows the publication of The World Report

on Road Traffic Injury Prevention by the World Health

Organization in 2004. This report highlights the fact that

all over the world working age people are more likely to

suffer hospitalization, permanent disability and death due

to road traffic injuries than most other diseases. The

situation in India is not very different.

About 82,000 persons were killed on Indian

roads in 2002. Official statistics regarding serious

injuries are not reliable as they underestimate the actual

number, but it is estimated that the number of people

hospitalized may be 15-20 times the number killed. In a

do-nothing scenario, it is possible that India will have

1,20,000 - 1,30,000 road traffic fatalities in the year

2008 and possibly 1,50,000 - 1,75,000 in 2015. Our

vision should aim at reducing the fatalities to less than

1,00,000 in the short term (2008) and less than 70,000

in the long term (2015).

xxx xxx xxx

Safety measures for the near future

xxx xxx xxx

Motor vehicle occupants: (i) Enforcement of

seatbelt use laws countrywide; (ii) restricting travel in

front seat of cars by children has the potential of

reducing injuries dramatically; and (iii) bus and truck

occupant injuries, fatalities, and injuries caused to other

road users can be reduced significantly by enforcing

strict observance of speed limit regulations on

highways. Ensuring that bus timetables and truck

movement schedules make it possible for drivers to

observe speed limits with ease. Random speed checking

on highways would help ensure such measures.

xxx xxx xxx

Road safety strategies - Long term

Traffic calming and speed control: (i) Aim at

implementing speed control and traffic calming

measures in all urban areas and at appropriate locations

on rural highways by altering road design, vehicle

monitoring through intelligent transport systems, and

vehicle design by the year 2015. This measure is likely

to give us the maximum savings in terms of lives and

serious injuries; and (ii) segregated lanes for vulnerable

road users and buses in urban areas. Non-motorized

transport and buses must be provided segregated lanes

on all major arterial roads in urban areas. India specific

designs need to be developed and phase wise

implementation plans drawn up for all cities.

xxx xxx xxx

Vehicle safely: (i) All vehicles sold in India

should meet international crashworthiness standards by

2010; (ii) all buses and trucks should meet pedestrian

impact standards by 2010; (iii) all urban buses to have

low floors and automatic closing doors; (iv)

crashworthiness standards must be developed for all

indigenous vehicles by 2010 and implemented by 2012;

(v) installation of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)

and other modern safety devices for assisting and

controlling drivers; and (vi) driving under the influence

of alcohol and other drugs. A long term strategy to

reduce drinking and driving incidence to less than 10

per cent of all crashes needs to be drawn up for the next

10 yr. Sensitization of the public to the extent of the

problem. Institution of random roadblocks and checking

on urban roads and rural highways. Ignition interlock

on cars."

12. In "Global Road Safety" certain revealing data have also been

provided. They read as follows:-

"THE COMING PLAGUE OF ROAD TRAFFIC

INJURIES: A PREVENTABLE BURDEN FOR RICH

AND POOR COUNTRIES".

13. Almost 1.2 million people are killed each year and 20-50 million are

injured or disabled, most people are unaware that road traffic injuries are a

leading cause of death and disability.

14. In developing countries, death rates from vehicle crashes are rising,

and disproportionately high in relation to the number of crashes. According

to a report published in 2000

7 Developing and transitional countries cumulatively represent over

85 percent of all road traffic deaths

Kenya has nearly 2,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes. Vietnam has

over 3,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes.

44% of all road traffic deaths occur in the Asia/Pacific area, which

only has 16 % of the total number of motor vehicles.

At 71,495 and 59,927 total deaths, China and India, respectively,

had the highest number of road fatalities in the world in 1995.-

Pedestrian deaths represent 62 % of all traffic fatalities in Lebanon.

In most developing countries vulnerable road users, including pedestrians,

bicycle and motor cycle riders, account for the majority of all fatalities.

Eastern European countries represent 6% of motor vehicles, but

11% of crash fatalities worldwide.

The Latin America/Caribbean region has the second highest crash

costs behind Asia.

15. As vehicle use in developing countries are increasing, road traffic

injuries are expected to become the third leading cause of death and

disability worldwide by 2020. In developing countries, each vehicle is much

more lethal than the vehicles in developed countries, because it most

frequently takes the lives not of vehicle occupants, but of vulnerable road

users: pedestrians, cyclists. Many developing countries are increasing the

rate of motorized vehicle use at up to 18% per year. In India, for example,

there has been a 23% increase in the number of vehicles from 1990-1999

and a 60-fold increase is predicted by 2050.

16. The human toll in such accidents is tragic. Survivors and family

members are affected not only by an immediate death or disability, but also

lifetime psychological and physical suffering. Crashes often result in

orphans, and some victims, as young as infants, spend the rest of their lives

with medical facilities.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

17. In addition to the devastating human toll, the economic impact of

road crashes is also enormous. Many of those injured or killed are wage

earners, leaving families destitute and without means of support. Loss of

wages, property damage, and other factors affected by road traffic crashes

represented 4.6% of the gross national product of the United States in 1994.

In developing countries, road traffic crashes represent 3-5% of the GNP.

`The estimated annual cost of road traffic crashes in developing countries

exceeds $100 billion (US). This amounts to nearly double the total

combined development assistance these countries receive every year from

bilateral and multi-lateral government organizations. Globally, the estimated

annual costs of road crashes are 500 billion (US).

THIS PROBLEM IS PREVENTABLE

18. We have the tools needed to combat this epidemic. In the developed

nations, proven methods such as enforcement of laws regarding driving

under the influence of alcohol or drugs, reducing speed limits, and requiring

seat belts and restraints have shown significant reduction in traffic fatalities.

Road design and road environment, vehicle design, and road safety

standards are also strategies that successfully address traffic safety. For

maximum impact of RTI's, a systems approach with multiple, scientifically

proven prevention techniques must be employed. Education alone has been

shown to be less effective, and often ineffective.

19. Proven interventions for developed countries require research,

modification, and testing for developing countries. For example, developing

countries face poorly designed and maintained roadways, unsafe vehicles,

drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol, lack of national policies, and

inadequate enforcement. Success will require significant new resources

supported by sustained political commitment.

20. These aspects were highlighted in Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

(2007 (8) SCALE 605).

21. 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. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in

Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).

22. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each

case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an

offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which

a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of

really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such

act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in

Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D.

2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide

a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in

the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime.

In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for

reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the

consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of

each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably

distinguished.

23. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in

achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is

expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to

impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the

sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.

24. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social

order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of

the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity,

kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences

involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on

social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require

exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or

taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of

such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and

against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by

string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

25. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not

awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the

individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and

victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be

irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and

brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the

crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's

cry for justice against the criminal".

26. This is a case where the High Court has without considering the

relevant aspects and even without indicating any reason, waived the

custodial sentence and imposed only fine. The judgment therefore is clearly

unsustainable. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and

that of the trial Court is restored.

27. The appeal is allowed.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi,

March 16, 2009

Labels----duty of every court while awarding proper sentence, Section 304-A IPC, 'rash and negligent act' defined, u/ss. 279 and 338 and 304 (A) IPC, Custodial sentence was waived without indicating any reason, Award of Punishment - Criterion for determining - Discussed, s. 304-A - Applicability of - Discussed, `Negligence' - Meaning of in the context of s. 304 (A) IPC, s. 71 IPC, Road Safety measures,