DALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 04-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
DALBIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
MAY4, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Pmbation of Offenders Act , 1958-S. 4. 
Road Accident-Death due to rash and negligent driving Conviction 
under Ss. 279 and 304-A, Penal Code-Invoking Claim under S. 4-Grant of-
Held, in view of galloping trend in mad accidents in the countly and its 
devastating consequences, lenience cannot be shown to the offenders-Thus, 
benevolent pmvisions of S. 4 held not attracted-Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 279 
and 304-A. 
Penology-Death due to rash and negligent driving-Sentence-Imposi-
tion of-Held, deterrence should be the prime consideration-Every offender 
should have fear psyche of sentence-Penal Code 1860-Ss. 279 and 304-A. 
Words & Phrases: 
"expedient"-Meaning of in the context of S. 4 of the probation of 
Offenders Act, 1958. 
Appellant, while driving a bus, knocked down a cyclist and crushed 
him to death. Both the trial court and sessions court holding the accused 
guilty of rash and negligent driving, convicted and sentenced him under 
Ss. 279 & 304-A of the Penal Code. High Court dismissed the Revision 
Petition. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the benevolent 
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be invoked in 
favour of the accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Appellant accused convicted for offences under Ss. 279 
and 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 is not entitled to the benevolent provi-
. H 
sion of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (P.O. Act). [1006-B] 
1000 
~ ... _ 
)--
~· 
~ 
DALBIR SINGH v. STATE 
1001 
" 
~ 
1.2. The provision of S. 4 of the Act can be invoked only if the court 
A 
forms as opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case 
including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is 
expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. Thus, Parliament 
has left it to the court to decide when and how the Court should form such 
opinion. However, one of the circumstances which cannot be side-lined in 
B 
forming the said opinion is ''the nature of the offence". [1004-G; B; CJ 
-{ 
1.3. There is sufficient indication in the Act that releasing the con-
victed person on good conduct must appear to the court to be expedient. 
The word "expedient'' had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament 
in the section so as to mean it as "apt and suitable to the end in view''. It is 
c 
used in the context of casting a duty on the court to take into account ''the 
circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence". This means 
Section 4 can be resorted to when the court considers the circumstances of 
the case, particularly the nature of the offence, and the court forms its 
opinion that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified 
D 
object that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct. 
[1004-C; G-H] 
State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri & Ors., Am (1974) SC 2233, 
referred to. 
;; 
Black's Law Dictionary & Webster's New International Dictionary, 
E 
referred to. 
2. Courts must bear in mind that when any plea is made based on S. 
4 of the PO Act for application to a convicted person under S. 304-A IPC, 
that road accidents have proliferated to alarming extent and the toll is 
galloping up day-by-day in India, and that no solution is in sight nor 
F 
~· 
suggested by any quarters to bring them down. Bearing in mind the 
galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating conse-
quences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat 
___, 
the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the be-
nevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. [1005-A; E] 
G 
~ 
3. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the 
offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of 
the prime considerations should be deterrence. A rash and negligent driver 
must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the 
offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts 
can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of 
motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles. (1005-F-H; 1006-A] 
B 
c 
State of Kamataka v. Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.