Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
9. The legislative intent of the MV Act, and in particular Chapter XIII of the MV Act, was not to override or supersede the provisions of the IPC in so far as convictions of offenders in motor vehicle accidents are concerned. Offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act, cannot abrogate the applicability of the provisions under Sections 297, 304, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC. The offences do not overlap, and therefore, the maxim of “generalia specialibus nonderogant” is inapplicable, and could not have been invoked. The offences prescribed under the IPC are independent of the offences prescribed under the M.V. Act. It cannot be said that prosecution of road traffic/motor vehicle offenders under the IPC would offend Section 5 of the IPC, as held by the High Court, in so far as punishment for offences under the M.V. Act is concerned.
10. Considering the matter from a different perspective, offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act are compoundable in nature in view of Section 208(3) of the MV Act, whereas offences under Section 279, 304 Part II and 304A IPC are not. If the IPC gives way to the MV Act, and the provisions of CrPC succumb to the provisions of the MV Act as held by the High Court, then even cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death, or grievous hurt, or simple hurt by rash and negligent driving, would become compoundable. Such an interpretation would have the consequence of letting an offender get away with a fine by pleading guilty, without having to face any prosecution for the offence committed.
11. This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified.
12. The principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.11 The maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act, is up to only six months; whereas the maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under the IPC in relation to road traffic offences can go upto 10 years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The sentence imposed by the courts should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and should have a deterring effect on wrong-doers.12 The punishment of offenders of motor vehicle accidents under the IPC is stricter and proportionate to the offence committed, as compared with the M.V. Act.
13. We thus hold that a prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the IPC and the MV Act, since both the statutes operate with full vigour, in their own independent spheres. Even assuming that some of the provisions of the MV Act and IPC are overlapping, it cannot be said that the offences under both the statutes are incompatible.
14. The High Court has given a contradictory finding by holding on the one hand that the provisions of the Cr.P.C must succumb to the provisions of the M.V. Act, as executive authorities cannot take away a beneficial provision under a special law enacted by Parliament (para 14 of the impugned judgment), while on the other hand, it has opined that the M.V. Act is not a complete code in itself, and there is no complete bar to investigate road traffic offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C. (para 23 of the impugned judgment).
15. In our considered view the position of law is well-settled. This Court has consistently held that the M.V. Act,1988 is a complete code in itself in so far as motor vehicles are concerned.13 However, there is no bar under the M.V. Act or otherwise, to try and prosecute offences under the IPC for an offence relating to motor vehicle accidents. On this ground as well, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 11 Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608 12 State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738 13 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 99 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945; Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 13 SCC 446 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 662 STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH v.RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 14 (2000) 5 SCC 82
16. The object behind punishing persons found guilty of causing motor vehicle accidents has been succinctly stated by this Court in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana14 in the following words: “11. Courts must bear in mind that when any plea is made based on Section 4 of the PO Act for application to a convicted person under Section 304-A IPC, that road accidents have proliferated to an alarming extent and the toll is galloping day by day in India, and that no solution is in sight nor suggested by any quarter to bring them down. When this Court lamented two decades ago that “more people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country”, the saturation of accidents toll was not even half of what it is today. So V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., has suggested in the said decision [Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 17] thus: (SCC p. 720, para 3) “Rashness and negligence are relative concepts, not absolute abstractions. In our current conditions, the law under Section 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.” 12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna [(1987) 1 SCC 538 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 198] this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under Section 304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing the death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles. “ [emphasis supplied] In Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka15, the Court opined that there is a constant concern of the Court on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of commission of offences in cases of motor vehicle accidents. In that case, the appellant was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months along with fine.
The Court held that: “32. We may note with profit that an appropriate punishment works as an eye-opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like ‘flies to the wanton boys’. They totally forget that the lives of many are STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH v.RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 15 (2012) 8 SCC 734 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 594 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 972 in their hands, and the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an indecent burial by their rash and negligent act. 33. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored.” [emphasis supplied]
17. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court to the States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh to issue appropriate instructions to their subordinate officers to prosecute offenders in motor vehicle accidents only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and not the IPC.
18. The Criminals Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The interim order passed on 26.04.2010 is made absolute. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly. Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.