Man held guilty for causing death by rash driving ordered to plant 50 trees by Punjab and Haryana High Court

“The case in hand is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests,” the court observed.

A magisterial court had convicted the man under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety), and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC and sentenced him to two years imprisonment.

His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by a sessions court in Ludhiana.

The man moved the high court against the punishment and his counsel submitted that over 11 years had elapsed since the incident and he has not been involved in any untoward activity since then.

The accident, advocate Amit Khari, said took place without any intention or overt act on the part of the convict.

The incident took place in 2014, when the man allegedly rammed into a motorbike carrying two persons. It was alleged that the convict was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the death of the pillion rider of the motorcycle.

The court noted that no adverse presumption could be drawn against the convict as there was nothing on record to show that he had a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct posed any threat to society.

While referring to Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, the court noted that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity.

“Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise ‘On Crimes and Punishments’ propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity,” the court said.

The court also observed that mere involvement of a person in crime may not necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal’ and said, “Criminality in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc., and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence.”

The court, therefore, directed the release of the convict on probation on furnishing an undertaking of keeping peace and good behaviour for two years to the satisfaction of the judicial magistrate and asked him to plant 50 indigenous trees.

“Petitioner shall also be liable to perform community service of plantation of 50 indigenous trees by approaching the Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana and for their maintenance for a period of 5 years,” the court directed.

There have been instances in the past where courts have issued similar directions.