STATE OF PUNJAB versus SAURABH BAKSHI

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 30-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 590 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SAURABH BAKSHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015) 
MARCH 30, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304A - Rash and negligent 
driving - Imposition of sentence - Adequacy of quantum of 
sentence - Death of two due to rash and negligent driving- · 
Tri.al court convicted respondent and sentenced him to 
o undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment - High Court noted 
that LRs of the deceased were awarded compensation of 
Rs.7.30 lacs and Rs.12.07 lacs respectively and that 
respondent has undergone impnsonment of 24 days out of 
orle year and, therefore, while upholding conviction reduced 
E the sentence to the period already undergone - Held: High 
Court was swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying 
the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for 
reduction of sentence to 24 days - It is ab!?olutely in th'e realm 
of misplaced sympathy and in a way mockery of justice -
F The sentence of 1 year as imposed by the courts .below is 
reduced to 6 months - Lawmakers to scrutinize, re-look and 
re-visit the sentencing policy in s. 304A - Sentence/ 
Sentencing. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, tl:ie Court 
H 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the factum of rash 
and negligent driv1ing was established. This court has 
been constantly nc,ticing the increase in number of road 
590 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI 
591 
accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers A 
have been totally rash and negligent. Neither the law nor 
the court that implements the law should ever get 
oblivious of the factthat in such accidents precious lives 
are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life 
which, in a way, worse than death. Such developing of B 
notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly 
society. The principle of sentencing recognizes the 
corrective measures but there are occasions when the 
deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon C 
the facts of the case. The High Court was swayed away 
by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that 
payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of 
sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of 
misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. o 
The sentence of one year as imposed by the trial 
Magistrate which was affirmed by the appellate court is 
reduced to six months. [Para 17] [610-A-B, C-D, F-H; 611-
A] 
E 
2. India has a disreputable record of road 
accidents. There is a non-challant attitude among the 
drivers. They feel that they are the "Emperors of all they 
survey". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving 
where the other people become their prey. The poor feel F 
that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of 
uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant 
fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude 
of the people who project themselves as "larger than 
life". In such obtaining circumstances, the lawmakers G 
should scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the sentencing 
policy in Section 304A, IPC. [Para 18] [611-8-D] 
Gopa/Singh v. StateofUttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 
H 
592 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
545; State of M.P. v. Mehtaab 2015 (2) SCALE 
386 - Distinguished. 
State of Punjab v. Ba/winder Singh and Ors. (2012) 
2 SCC 182: 2012 (1) SCR 45; Guru Basavaraj 
Alias Benne Settappa v. State of Kamataka (2012) 
8 SCC 734: 2012 (8) SCR 189; Suresh v. State 
of Haryana Crl.Appeal No. 420 of 2012 decided 
on 28.11.2014; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana 
(2000) 5 sec 82: 2000 (3) SCR1000; B. 
Nagabhushanam v. State of Kamataka (2008) 5 
SCC 730: 2008 (8) SCR444; Ratan Singh v. State 
of Punjab (1979) 4 sec 719: 1980 (1) SCR846; 
State of Kamataka v. Krishna. (1987) 1 SCC 
538:1987 (1) SCR1103; Sevaka Perumal v. State 
of T.N. (1991) 3 sec 471: 1991 (2) SCR 111; 
Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat 
(1994) 4 SCC 353; State of Karnataka v. 
Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 
SCC 738: 2002 (2) SCR692; State of M.P. v. 
Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554: 2005 (1) Suppl. 
SCR562; Siriya v. State of M.P. (2008) 8 SCC 72: 
2008 (8) SCR 422; Alister Anthony Pareira Ii. State 
of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648: 2012 (1) 
SCR145; Shailesh Jasvantbhaiv. State of Gujarat 
(2006) 2 sec 359: 2006 (1) SCR477; Shyam 
Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77: 
2013 (8) SCR951 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 6 
Para 6 
2012 (1) SCR 45 
2012 (8) SCR 189
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.