JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner accused has challenged in this revision petition the judgment dated 9.12.88 passed in criminal appeal No. 36/85 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur, confirming the judgment dated 19.3.84 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Salumber in Cr. Case No. 491/82 convicting the accused for offence punishable Under Section 304A, 338, 307 and 279 IPC and passing the order of sentence of two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s S.I. under Section 304A IPC; six months, R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s S.I. Under Section 338 IPC; One month’s R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 day’s S.I. Under Section 337 IPC; and one month’s R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s S.I. Under Section 279 IPC.
3. The incident in question took place on 29.9.82. The petitioner was driving the bus No. GRT 1953. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was driving the bus in a very excessive speed and in spite of being requested by the passengers travelling in it to slow down the speed, he continued to drive at an excessive speed where upon he met with an accident wherein five persons lost their lives.
4. Learned Counsel Shri Mathur for the petitioner accused vehemently submitted that it was not in the hands of the accused to prevent the accident. He submitted that due to mechanical failure of break the accident took place. He submitted that both the courts below have committed an error in discarding his defence and convicting him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as stated above.
5. I have gone through the orders passed by the courts below. The courts below have not only considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses but also defence of accused. All the passengers, who have deposed in this case against the accused have clearly stated that the accused was driving bus at a very excessive speed and they were frightened. They requested him to slow down the bus but he did not give any heed to the request. Immediately thereafter he lost the control over the bus and it over turned. On behalf of the accused there was not even any suggestion to any of the prosecution witnesses that he applied the brake or there, was a failure of brake and because of that the accident was caused. The defence of the accused that one stray cow was passing through the road, was not even put to the witnesses. Considering these aspects of the case, the Courts below rejected defence of the accused. I am in complete agreement with the courts below.
6. An attempt was made by the learned Counsel Shri Mathur to support the case of the accused from the evidence of P.W. 16 M.T.O. Shri Abdul Rehman. His evidence was also considered by the courts below and after considering his evidence, the courts below have come to the conclusion that the defence of the accused was not acceptable. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial court. This Court has to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The scope is very narrow and limited. The reasons assigned by the courts below cannot be said to be so perverse so as to call for the interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In my opinion, the courts below have rightly held that because of the rash and negligent driving, he caused fatal accident and rightly held the petitioner accused guilty. Many persons have lost their valuable lives in this accident. The accident could have been very well avoided if the petitioner had slowed down the speed. Just before the accident, he was requested by the driver to slow down the speed of the bus but he did not listen to them and immediately thereafter caused the accident. Looking to the photograph of the bus and the Panchnama, it is clear that it is a gross case of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, in my opinion, the courts below have rightly relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses convict the accused and rightly discarded the evidence of the defence.
7. It was then argued by learned Counsel Shri Mathur that the petitioner be given benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr. P.C Grant. of benefit of probation in such cases to such person is totally out of question. The way in which the accidents are increasing, caused great alarm and concern to one and all. On facts of this case, the petitioner does not deserve any benefit of probation. Hence, this submission of Mr. Mathur is rejected.
8. Lastly, Mr. Mathur submitted that the sentence is very harsh. He submitted that by now the petitioner has undergone sentence of about 33 days. Therefore, the order of sentence already undergone will serve the interest of justice. In support of his submission, he relied upon the Supreme Court judgments reported in Usman Gani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 642 and Modi Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1994 (1) WLN 612. He submitted that, in this case the accident took place way back in 1982 almost 15 years from today; Therefore, it will not be proper to send him to undergo the remaining part of sentence. He submitted that since last 15 years, he is undergoing mental agony and torture as there was always a hanging sword on his head. It is true that by now 15 years period has passed since the commission of offence. But the petitioner was convicted by the trial court in 1984 against which he preferred an appeal which was dismissed in 1988 by the appellate Court. Thereafter, he filed this revision petition in 1988. If this petition was dismissed at that time then it was only six years period. This revision petition was admitted in 1988 and pending since then. During the pendency he is released on bail. It is only because of the back log of the cases that this Court was not able to take up this matter for final hearing at the earliest. It all depends upon facts of each case. If the person like the petitioner accused is given such type of benefit by reducing the sentence as already undergone then no deterrent effect will be caused to others. No case is made out to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. In my view the courts below should have imposed maximum sentence as provided because in such offences like Section 304A maximum punishment is only two years.
9. Lastly, Mr. Mathur, relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Modi Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) submitted that the substantive sentence be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone and fine may be enhanced as it was done in that case. In my view mere pendency of the case for last 15 years will not be a ground to interfere with the order of sentence passed by the courts below. What type of mental agony could have been undergone by the accused ? The court has to take into consideration the mental agony and the hardships suffered by the relatives of the deceased, who have lost their lives in the accident.
10. In case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab the Apex Court refused to interfere with the sentence of two years’ R.I. awarded to the truck driver by observing that when a life was lost and the circumstances were so harsh no compassion can be shown. The Apex Court also observed that:
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 goods 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 regular 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.”
“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 should attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. May be, the State may consider, incases 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.
11. Unfortunately, no immediate action was taken by the State Government though the judgment was delivered by the Apex Court way back in 1979. Fortunately, now the Government has felt the need of taking stringent action in the matter. The Apex Court had to make such strong observations because of the escalating statistics of road casualties. The Apex Court in Rattan Singh’s case (supra) further observed that:
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.
12. Rattan Singh’s case was not considered by this Court in Modi Ram’s case (supra). In my view, this is not a case for reducing the sentence.
13. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. His bail bonds stands cancelled. The accused shall surrender forthwith. Copy of this order be circulated to all subordinate courts by the registry at the earliest for their consideration while passing order of sentence in such cases.