RATTAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 03-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·A 
B 
846 
RA Tr AN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
October 3, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-S. 304A-Rash and negligen! driving-Sentence of two· 
years rigorous imprisonment-If excessive. 
Sentencing-Punisllfnent for drivinR offences-Policy of correction-Course· 
for better driving-Occasional parole-Legislative action-Necessity. 
C 
The petitioner, a driver, of a heavy automobile, was sentenced to two years' 
D 
E 
rigorous imprisonment under s. 304A IPC for having killed a scooterist by his 
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The petitioner"s plea that sGmeone else 
was responsible for the accident wa's rejected by the trial and ~ppellate courts .. 
On the question whether the sentence was excessive, 
HELD : Rashness and negligence are· relative concepts, not absolute abstrac~ 
tions. 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 q~estion of Conviction and 
sentence. [848 CJ 
[(a) Sentencing must haVe Q policy of correction. When the punish--
ment is fo'r driving offences, the State should attach a c@urse for better 
driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility and in the cases of· 
men with poor families, the State may consider occasional parole and refor-
matory course. [848 E-F] 
p 
(b) Victim reparation is still the wnishing point of criminal law. The 
G 
H 
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] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Special 
Leave Petition-
(Crl.) No. 953 of 1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13-10-1978 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Cr!. 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 
. J,
RATTAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Krishna Iyer, !.) 
847 
becoming so common these days in our towns and cities. 
This is a 
case w(1ich is more a portent than an event and. is symbolic of the 
callous yet tragic traffic chaos and treache~ous unsafely 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 
I 
absence of public interest Jit,igation to call state transport to order, 
and the lack of citizens' tort consciousness, and what with the neglect 
in· legislating intC' 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 
nwkes 
travel a tryst with Death. It looks as if traffic regulations are vir-
tually dead . and police checking mostly absent. 
By these processes 
of lawlessness, public roads are now lurking death traps. The State 
must rise \o 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 criss-cross offen in a spirituous 
state, riding scooters withou

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