Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Death By Rash Driving: Delhi HC Holds Debarment From Obtaining Driving Licence For Life As Excessive Sentence

Wed, Mar 18, 20, 12:03, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 9 - hits: 5068
Sunil Kumar Mishra vs. State pertaining to death caused due to rash and negligent driving has very rightly held that lifetime ban on the convict from getting a driving license is too harsh a sentence when his entire livelihood is depended upon driving.

In a balanced, brilliant and bold decision, the Delhi High Court has just recently on March 12, 2020 in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable 15-page judgment titled Sunil Kumar Mishra vs. State in Crl. Rev. P. 494/2017 which is pertaining to death caused due to rash and negligent driving has very rightly held that lifetime ban on the convict from getting a driving license is too harsh a sentence when his entire livelihood is depended upon driving. While modifying the order of sentence in a revision petition, the Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of Delhi High Court has very rightly and remarkably observed that, The punishment of cancellation of the driving license permanently and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life literally amounts to his civil death because he would not be in a position to carry out his profession for life. Very rightly so!

To start with, this notable oral judgment authored by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of Delhi High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, Petitioner impugns judgment dated 27.02.2017 whereby the appeal of the petitioner impugning order on conviction dated 28.10.2015 has been dismissed, however, the order on sentence dated 08.11.2015 has been modified.

While elaborating on the charges against the petitioner and the punishment that he had been sentenced to undergo, it is then observed in para 2 that, Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court of the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for the period of 18 months under Section 304A IPC.

While then elaborating on the decision taken by the Appellate Court, it is then brought out in para 3 that, The Appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, considering mitigating circumstances and also the family condition of the petitioner, while upholding the order on conviction, modified the order on sentence and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 days and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months for the offence under Section 304A IPC, instead of 18 months.

In addition, it is then also pointed out in para 4 that, The Appellate Court additionally directed that the driving licence of the petitioner shall stand cancelled and debarred him from obtaining any driving licence throughout his life and directed that no fresh driving licence shall be issued to him.

By all accounts, the punishment that was imposed by the Appellate Court as narrated in para 4 is far too excessive. This has been acknowledged and appreciated even by the Delhi High Court itself in this landmark judgment even though it admitted that the Appellate Court is empowered to debar a person from holding a licence for as long a period as it deems fit. So no wonder that it had to be set aside!

Be it noted, para 29 very rightly states that, The petitioner is a driver by profession and cancellation of the driving license of the petitioner permanently and debarring him from obtaining a driving licence for life amounts to a punishment that he cannot carry out the vocation of driving throughout his life.

Most significantly, it is then very rightly conceded in para 30 that, The punishment of cancellation of the driving license permanently and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life literally amounts to his civil death because he would not be in a position to carry out his profession for life. Who can deny or dispute this? Certainly no one!

Needless to say, it is quite remarkable that Delhi High Court has been gracious enough to concede that the consequences of cancellation of his driving license for life and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life literally amounts to his civil death as he would be decapitated from carrying out his profession throughout his remaining life which certainly under no circumstances can be justified as two wrongs cannot make a right! The Appellate Court certainly did not deliberate much on this! This alone explains why it failed to appreciate what the Delhi High Court has done now so rightly!

To put it succinctly, the Delhi High Court then rightly held in para 32 that, In the present case, as noticed above, the concurrent finding of both the courts below is that petitioner caused the death by driving the offending vehicle i.e. truck trailer, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased from the back, in such a manner that it caused the death of the deceased on the spot. Clearly, it cannot be said that the action of the Appellate Court in directing cancellation of the license driving license is unwarranted. However, in the facts of the case and particularly keeping in view the provisions of section 22 of the Act, I am of the opinion that cancellation of the license driving license of the petitioner for all classes or description of vehicles is excessive.

Finally and no less significantly, it is then held in para 33 that, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served, in case, the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court of cancellation of the driving license of the petitioner and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life, is modified to the extent that the driving license of the petitioner is cancelled for the class and description of medium and heavy goods and medium and heavy passenger vehicle and he is debarred from obtaining a driving licence for medium and heavy goods and medium and heavy passenger vehicle. For obtaining a driving licence of other description of vehicles he shall have to undergo a fresh test of competence to drive.

In conclusion, it may well be said that it is a fairly balanced and well concluded judgment. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of Delhi High Court very rightly acknowledges the power of the Appellate Court to deprive the petitioner of his driving license for life but in the same vein also concedes that it is excessive! This alone explains that why the judgment of the Appellate Court was overturned and the petitioner was granted relief by the Delhi High Court! All the courts must follow the Delhi High Court in similar such cases and take a compassionate view as we see here in this notable judgment!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs The New India Assurance Company Limited has laid down in no uncertain terms that it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, who would be treated as the owner of the vehicle, for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Based on a recent judgment of SCI in which I was the counsel for the claimants. Useful for lawyers practising compensation cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the judgment lays down some principles which are new in the field.
Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shanmugam Guidelines for the settlement of just compensation. This was considered imperative in order to minimize false claims and illegal practices in the matter of settlement of accident claims
Motor Accident Compensation Insurer Not Liable Unless Vehicle Owner Proves That He Took Reasonable Care To See That His Driver Renewed Driving Licence Within Time:
Car accidents can be intensely traumatic because they happen suddenly and often with tremendous force that causes severe injuries, and often, death.
In a realistic, robust and rational judgment titled Anita Sharma vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd has observed clearly, cogently and convincingly that the standard of proof in Motor Accident Claim Cases is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
In case you are injured or have suffered property damage because of a car accident, you may be wondering how an attorney may assist you in dealing with the insurance company for settling the claim. All the things depend on the complexity and specifics of a particular case, in general, and an attorney may help in various ways.
There seems to be an accident almost every minute, every single day, somewhere across the globe. Most of the people who drive must have encountered an accident minimum once in their driving stint.
For many of the households, it is a necessary utility to have a suitable car or truck cover to keep your valuable vehicles in fair share during winter.
Sunny Thomas vs Kerala allowing bail to a person accused of ramming his truck into a vehicle belonging to the Kerala High Court has minced just no words to observe categorically that India did not yet have legal provisions penalizing road rage.
N Jayasree vs Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd civil appellate jurisdiction delivered most recently on October 25, 2021 has minced no words to observe that a motor accident claim petition filed by mother in law who was dependent on her deceased son in law is maintainable.
the police officers have no power to detain or seize vehicles on the ground that the person driving was found in an intoxicated condition.
The purpose of this article is to discuss the domestic application of air laws in India as air law is a component of modern international law, national aviation law is inextricably tied to international air law.
Vijay Mamgain Vs Haryana that the owner of the vehicle who is seeking only release of the vehicle is not liable to pay fine for the confiscated goods.
Rishi Pal Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd that an owner of a vehicle cannot be expected to verify the genuineness of his driver’s licence if he was satisfied about his driving skills.
Gohar Mohammed vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation that: For the effective implementation of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the specified trained police personnel are required to be deputed to deal with the motor accident claim cases.
Jugal Kishor Ray v. Ashok Prasad Yadav that compensation is due from the date of the accident, and interest calculations begin from that date.
Rajak vs State has issued a comprehensive set of nine guidelines for mining officers to ensure transparency and adherence to legal procedure while seizing the vehicles involved in mining-related activities.
Qadeer Hussain vs UT of J&K that it is futile to keep vehicles seized in connection with criminal cases, at police stations for long periods.
Pooja Gagan Jain vs Maharashtra that an order to release the minor accused in the Pune luxury car accident case that had claimed two lives into the care and custody of his paternal aunt.
XYZ vs Maharashtra criminal appellate jurisdiction has passed an order to release the minor accused in the Pune luxury car accident case
Top