STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus RAM PAL
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 955, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[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 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A against the vehicle and the appellant was not rash or 
negligent in driving. 
6. The trial Court noted that the vehicle was coming 
uphill as admitted by PW 4 Seema. It was also admitted 
B that the girl was struck on the back side of the vehicle. The 
vehicle was going uphill on a road, condition of which was 
bad. Thus, the vehicle could not be at high speed. 
7. On appeal, the view taken by the trial Court was 
c reversed. It was held that even if the vehicle was going at 
slow speed and uphill, the vehicle could have been stopped 
and its striking to the girl could have been prevented. 
Undoubtedly, the death was because of vehicle hitting the 
girl which in the circumstances was clear result of rash and 
D . negligent act of driving. Accordingly, the appellate Court 
convicted the respondent under Section 279 and 304 A IPC 
and awarded sentence of imprisonment for six months and 
fine of Rs.1000, in default further imprisonment of one 
month under Section 304 A I PC and concurrent 
E imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500, in default 
further imprisonment of fifteen days under Section 279 IPC. 
8. The respondent accused preferred appeal to the 
High Court. The High Court noticed the post mortem report 
F to the effect that "the cause of death of the deceased was 
crush injury of lumbo-sacral spine and 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 
G substituted by fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of which 
sentence awarded by the trial Court was to revive. 
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
H 
10. Learned counsel for the State 
pointed out that it
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAM PAL 
959 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
was the duty of the Court to award just and fair sentence. A 
If a liberal view was taken on sentence of imprisonment, 
reasonable amount of compensation was required to be 
awarded. On this text, the view taken by the High Court is 
not sustainable. The amount of Rs.40,000/- cannot be held 
to be adequate compensation when life of a young girl aged 
B 
20 years was lost. 
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that 
the accused was a poor man and a driver and could not 
pay more amount as compensation. He also submitted that C 
even though it was a case of driving in a difficult terrain 
where different parameters ought to be applied for 
t"'.
determining negligence. 
, 
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the o 
rival submissions and perused the record. 
13. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of 
the case that the respondent has not called in question his 
conviction. We have before us only challenge to the E 
inadequacy of the sentence in the present appeal filed 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. We are thus, .F 
not inclined to reopen the correctness of conviction of the 
respondent and proceed to consider the question of 
adequacy of the sentence. In our view, the sentence of mere
fine of Rs.40,000/- imposed by the High Court is not 
adequate and proportionate to the offence. We have been G 
informed that a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- has been awarded as 
compensation by the insurance company to the heirs of the 
deceased. We are also of the view that where the accused 
is unable to pay adequate compensation to the victim or 
H
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A his heir, the Court ought to have awarded compensation 
under Section 357A against the State from the funds 
available under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed 
under the said section. This Court has dealt with the issue 
in Suresh vs. State of Haryana1, Manohar Singh vs. State 
B of Rajasthan & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2015 
decided on 16.1.2015) and State of M.P. vs. Mehtaab 
(Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2015 decided on 13.2.2015). 
Having regard to totality of circumstances of the present 
case, we feel that ends of justice will be served if the 
C accused is required to pay total compensation of Rs.1 lakh 
and the State to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. 
14. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order passed 
by the High Court and enhance the compensation to be paid 
D by the respondent accused to Rs.1 lakh to be paid within 
four months failing which the sentence awarded by the 
Court of Session shall stand revived. In addition, we direct 
the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay interim compensation 
of Rs.3 lakhs. In case the respondent fails to pay any part 
E 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. The amount 
already paid may be adjusted. 
F 
15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal disposed of. 
G 
H 1 201 s (2) sec 227