LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus RAM PAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 955 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAM PAL (Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2015) FEBRUARY 27, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] A B PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.279 and 304A - Fatal accident C of 20 years old girl due to rash and negligent driving - Conviction ulss.279 and 304-A - High Court noticed the post mortem report to the effect that "the cause of death of the deceased was crush injury of Jumbo-sacral spine and 0 pelvic bone leading to cardio respiratory arrest" - It was inferred that such injury could be possible only with rash and negligent driving - However, sentence of imprisonment was set aside and substituted by fine of Rs.40,0001- - On appeal, held: Sentence of fine of Rs.40, 000 was inadequate E - Insurance company had awarded Rs.360,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased - In the ends of justice, accused required to pay total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and the State to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs - Compensation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - F s.357A. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that the respondent did not call in question G his conviction. The challenge was only to the inadequacy of the sentence in the instant appeal filed 955 H ~56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A by the State. Moreover, in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not re-appreciate the evidence, in absence of perversity or patent legal error, merely because a different view was also possible. The correctness of conviction of the B respondent is, therefore, not opened. As regards the sentencing, the sentence of mere fine of Rs.40,000/· imposed by the High Court was not adequate and proportionate to the offence. A sum of Rs.3,60,000/· has been awarded as compensation by the insurance C company to the heirs of the deceased. Where the accused is unable to pay adequate compensation to the victim or his heir, the Court ought to have awarded compensation under Section 357A, Cr.P.C. against the 0 State from the funds available under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed under the said section. The ends of justice would be served if the accused is required to pay total compensation of Rs.1 lakh and the State to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. In case the respondent E fails to pay any part of the compensation, that part of compensation will also be paid by the State so that the heirs of the victim get total sum of Rs. 4 lakhs towards compensation. [Paras 13, 14] [959-E-H; 960-A-C, E] F Suresh VS. State of Haryana 2015 (2) sec 227; Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Crl. A. 99 of 2015 decided on 16.1.2015; State ofM.P. vs. Mehtaab Crl A 290 of 2015 decided on 13.2.2015 - relied on. G Case Law Reference 2015 (2) sec 221 Relied on. Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No 393 of 2015 .. From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .02.2013 of the H High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAM PAL 957 No. 406 of 2011. A . Varinder Kumar Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar for the Appellant. ' ~ P. C. Sharma, Anchit Sharma, Sumit Kumar for the 8 Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 27'h February, 2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.406 of 2011. c D 3. Only question raised for consideration is whether the sentence imposed in the facts and circumstances is fair and just.· 4. On 20'h August, 2009 at 5.35 P.M. FIR was lodged by PW 3 Chhering to the effect that he was a mason in the E work of construction of road at Gulaba near Manali. At 2.30 P.M., a tanker driven by the respondent accused struck the deceased Sonam a 20 year old girl, which was on account of rash and negligence driving by the respondent. The F injured was taken to Mission hospital, Manali where she was declared dead on arrival. After completing the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. 5. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW 1 Dr. Balbir Rawat, PW 2 Budhi Singh, PW 3 Chhering, G PW 4 Smt. Seema, PW 5 Sange Sherpa and PW 6 SI Om Chand. The accused took up the plea that the deceased came under the rear tyre after a part of the vehicle had already crossed. The girl had come running and struck H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.