Case: Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra

which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the societys cry for justice against the criminal”.” 76. In the case of Shailesh Jasvantbhai11, the Court referred to earlier decisions in Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B. ((1994) 2 SCC 220 ), Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan ((1996) 2 SCC 175 ), State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh ((2003) 8 SCC 13 ), Surjit Singh v. Nahara Ram & Anr. ((2004) 6 SCC 513 ), State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey ((2005) 2 SCC 710 ). In Ravji19, this Court stated that the court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the societys cry for justice against the criminal”. 77. In Manish Jalan12, this Court considered Section 357 of the Code in a case where the accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. After noticing Section 357, the Court considered earlier decision of this Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. ((1988) 4 SCC 551 ) wherein it was observed, `it may be noted that this power of courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system”. Then the court noticed another decision of this Court in Sarwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ((1978) 4 SCC 111 ) in which it was observed that in awarding compensation, it was necessary for the court to decide if the case was a fit one in which compensation deserved to be granted. Then the court considered another decision of this Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. ((2007) 6 SCC 528 ) wherein the court held at Page 545 of the Report as under: “38. The purpose of imposition of fine and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must be considered having the relevant factors therefor in mind. It may be compensating the person in one way or the other. The amount of compensation sought to be imposed, thus, must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of the accused to pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, an enquiry in this behalf even in a summary way, may be necessary. Some reasons, which may not be very elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the purpose being that whereas the power to impose fine is limited and direction to pay compensation can be made for one or the other factors enumerated out of the same; but sub-section (3) of Section 357 does not impose any such limitation and thus, power thereunder should be exercised only in appropriate cases. Such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a Judge.” Having regard to the above legal position and the fact that the mother of the victim had no grievance against the appellant therein and she prayed for some compensation, this Court held that a lenient view could be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment could be reduced and, accordingly, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. One lakh to the mother of the victim. 78. World Health Organisation in the Global Status Report on Road Safety has pointed out that speeding and drunk driving are the major contributing factors in road accidents. According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the total number of deaths due to road accidents in India every year is now over 1,35,000. NCRB Report also states drunken driving as a major factor for road accidents. Our country has a dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents. It is high time that law makers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in Section 304A IPC. 79. The facts and circumstances of the case which have been proved by the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC undoubtedly show despicable aggravated offence warranting punishment proportionate to the crime. Seven precious human lives were lost by the act of the accused. For an offence like this which has been proved against the appellant, sentence of three years awarded by the High Court is too meagre and not adequate but since no appeal has been preferred by the State, we refrain from considering the matter for enhancement. By letting the appellant away on the sentence already undergone i.e. two months in a case like this, in our view, would be travesty of justice and highly unjust, unfair, improper and disproportionate to the gravity of crime. It is true that the appellant has paid compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- but no amount of compensation could relieve the family of victims from the constant agony. As a matter of fact, High Court had been quite considerate and lenient in awarding to the appellant sentence of three years for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC where seven persons were killed.80. We are satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify benefit of probation to the appellant for good conduct or for any reduction of sentence.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]our opinion there is no impediment in law for an offender being charged for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and also under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. The two charges under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 338 IPC can legally co-exist in a case of single rash or negligent act where a rash or negligent act is done with the knowledge of likelihood of its dangerous consequences.44. By charging the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 338 IPC - which is legally permissible - no prejudice has been caused to him. The appellant was made fully aware of the charges against him and there is no failure of justice. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. U.U. Lalit that by charging the appellant for the offences under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 338 IPC for a rash or negligent act resulting in injuries to eight persons and at the same time committed with the knowledge resulting in death of seven persons, the appellant has been asked to face legally impermissiblecannot be said that the appellant was not made fully aware of the prosecution evidence that he had driven the car rashly or negligently in a drunken condition. He had full opportunity to say what he wanted to say with regard to the prosecution evidence.We have also carefully considered the evidence let in by prosecution - the substance of which has been referred to above - and we find no justifiable ground to take a view different from that of the High Court. We agree with the conclusions of the High Court and have no hesitation in holding that the evidence and materials on record prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant can be attributed with knowledge that his act of driving the vehicle at a high speed in the rash or negligent manner was dangerous enough and he knew that one result would very likely be that people who were asleep on the pavement may be hit, should the vehicle go out of control. There is a presumption that a man knows the natural and likely consequences of his acts. Moreover, an act does not become involuntary act simply because its consequences were unforeseen. The cases of negligence or of rashness or dangerous driving do not eliminate the act being voluntary. In the present case, the essential ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC have been successfully established by the prosecution against the appellant. The infirmities pointed out by Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant, which have been noticed above are not substantial and in no way affect the legality of the trial and the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC. We uphold the view of the High Court being consistent with the evidence on record and law.The facts and circumstances of the case which have been proved by the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC undoubtedly show despicable aggravated offence warranting punishment proportionate to the crime. Seven precious human lives were lost by the act of the accused. For an offence like this which has been proved against the appellant, sentence of three years awarded by the High Court is too meagre and not adequate but since no appeal has been preferred by the State, we refrain from considering the matter for enhancement. By letting the appellant away on the sentence already undergone i.e. two months in a case like this, in our view, would be travesty of justice and highly unjust, unfair, improper and disproportionate to the gravity of crime. It is true that the appellant has paid compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- but no amount of compensation could relieve the family of victims from the constant agony. As a matter of fact, High Court had been quite considerate and lenient in awarding to the appellant sentence of three years for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC where seven persons were killed.80. We are satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify benefit of probation to the appellant for good conduct or for any reduction of