Summarize the following court judgment. : 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 Crl. Revision No. 1021 of 1978. A. section 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 article 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 847 becoming so common these days in our towns and cities. This is a Case which is more a portent than an event and is symbolic of the callous yet tragic traffic chaos and treacherous unsafety 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 absence of public interest litigation to call state transport to order	 and the lack of citizens ' tort consciousness	 and what with the neglect in legislating into 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 makes travel a tryst with Death. It looks as if traffic regulations are virtually dead and police checking mostly absent. By these processes of lawlessness	 public roads are now lurking death traps. The State must rise to 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 crisscross often in a spirituous state	 riding scooters without helmets and with whole families on pillions	 thoughtless cycling and pedestrian jay walking with lawless ease	 suffocating jam packing of stage carriages and hell driving of mini buses	 overloading of trucks with perilous projections and	 above all	 police man	 if any	 proving by helpless presence that law is dead in this milieu charged with melee such is the daily	 hourly scene of summons by Death to innocent persons who take to the roads	 believing in the bonafide of the traffic laws. We hope that every State in India will take note of the human price of highway neglect	 of State transport violations and the like	 with a sombre sensitivity and reverence for life. This	 however	 does not excuse the accused from his rash driving of a 'blind Leviathan in berserk locomotion '. If we may adapt the words of Lord Green M.R.: 'It scarcely lies in the mouth of 848 the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers '. Rashness and negligence are relative concepts	 not absolute abstractions. In our current conditions	 the law under sec. 304 A IPC and under the rubric of Negligence	 must have due regard to the fatal frequency of rash driving of heavy duty vehicles and of speeding menaces. Thus viewed	 it is fair to apply the rule of res ipsa loquitur	 of course	 with care. Conventional defences	 except under compelling evidence	 must break down before the pragmatic Court and must be given short shrift. Looked at from this angle	 we are convinced that the present case deserves no consideration on the question of conviction. Counsel for petitioner has contended that a sentence of 2 years ' R.I. is excessive	 especially having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a large family to maintain and the proprietor of the truck has left his family in the cold. When a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh	 no compassion can be shown. We do not interfere with the sentence	 although the owner is often not morally innocent. Nevertheless	 sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver	 if he has to become a good driver	 must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility	 with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this 1: area must	 therefore	 be accompanied by these components. The State	 we hope	 will attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility	 when the punishment is for driving offences. Maybe	 the State may consider? in cases of men with poor families	 occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application	 without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion. The victimisation of The family of the convict may well be a reality and is regrettable. It is a weakness of our jurisprudence that the victims of the crime	 and the distress of the dependents of the prisoner	 do not attract the attention of the law. Indeed	 victim reparation is still the vanishing point of our criminal law ! This is a deficiency in the system which must be rectified by the Legislature. We can only draw attention to this matter. Hopefully	 the Welfare State will bestow better thought and action to traffic justice in the light of the observations we have made. We dismiss the special leave petition. N.V.K. Petition dismissed.

The petitioner	 a driver	 of a heavy automobile	 was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 304A IPC for having killed a scooterist by his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The petitioners plea that someone else was responsible for the accident was rejected by the trial and appellate courts. on the question whether the sentence was excessive	 ^ HELD: Rashness and negligence are relative concepts	 not absolute abstractions. The law under section 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 question of conviction and sentence. [848 C] [(a) Sentencing must have a policy of correction. When the punishment is for driving offences	 the State should attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility and in the case of men with poor families	 the State may consider occasional parole and reformatory course. [848 E F] (b) Victim reparation is still the vanishing point of criminal law. The 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]