Drunk driving by youth: Court calls for deterrent punishment
A court in New Delhi has upheld the jail term of a 22-year-old youth in a drunk driving case, saying that 'a young person if spared of adequate punishment at this stage may not realise consequence of the wrong done by him'
New Delhi: A court in New Delhi has upheld the jail term of a 22-year-old youth in a drunk driving case, saying that 'a young person if spared of adequate punishment at this stage may not realise consequence of the wrong done by him.'
Special Judge Narottam Kaushal made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by Delhi resident Santosh against a magisterial court's March 7, 2015 order sending him to 10 days in jail and imposing a fine of Rs 4,000. "The fact that a young boy of about 22 years was found heavily drunk and driving the two-wheeler, calls for a deterrent punishment. The corrective theory of sentencing has a societal angle to it.
"A young person if spared of adequate punishment at this stage may not realise the consequence of the wrong done by him. Inadequate sentence may encourage him to take situation lightly and be oblivious of societal consequences and he may tend repeat the offence," the court said while upholding his jail term.
The special judge rejected the submission of Santosh, who had pleaded guilty, that the breath analyser used by traffic police had previously been used by other offenders, therefore, it displayed higher level of alcohol than actual.
It also said that such a person (drunk) on steering wheel or a two wheeler is capable of causing grievous injury or even death of innocent person, for no fault of such a person. "Moreover, the maximum sentence provided in the statue being six months, the present sentence (ten day imprisonment) cannot be said to be harsh," it said.
In his appeal against the 10-day sentence, Santosh had submitted that being a young person, sending him into jail would not be conducive for his social image and future. However, he claimed that he had already paid the fine imposed by trial court.
The prosecution, however, opposed the appeal filed by the convict and submitted that Santosh was found heavily drunk and was extremely reckless and negligent. It said that the alcohol content was found to be 657.3 mg per 100 ml of blood, whereas permissible limit was 30 mg per 100 ml.