Revisit sentencing policy for rash driving: SC to government

NEW DELHI: Talking tough on incidents of rash and negligent driving, the Supreme Court has asked the government to revisit the sentencing policy which provides for two years of jail for the crime. Objective of sentencing is to deter people from committing crimes, the court reminded the government.

"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," said a bench comprising Justice RM Lodha and Justice JS Khehar in its judgement.

"Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done".

The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer, it said.

The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence, the bench said adding, "twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction".

Section 304 A of IPC says, "whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Justice Lodha, writing the judgement for the bench, said, "rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result.