'No Minimum Sentence Prescribed For Conviction Under S.304A & 338 IPC' : Supreme Court Alters Sentence In Negligent Driving Case

Recently, the Supreme Court ordered the release of a convict charged for causing the death of a pillion rider of a motorcycle due to his rash and negligent driving by reducing his period of sentence to a period already suffered by him during custody. 

Noting that there's no minimum punishment of sentence prescribed for under Sections 304 A and 338 of the IPC, the bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upon placing reliance on the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in LL 2021 SC 279 ordered for substitution of sentence to only fine.

In the present case, the appellant was arrested on 10.05.2024 and by he was in custody for about 117 days.

The appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”) in connection with a road accident. The allegation against the accused was that he drove the mini Lorry in a rash and negligent manner and the mini Lorry hit against the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. The pillion rider (deceased) fell down from the impact, sustained grievous injuries, and died.

The main charge against the appellant is about causing death by rash and negligent driving of the mini Lorry which resulted in the death of the pillion rider of the motorcycle. For conviction under Section 304(A) and Section 338 of the IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed but the term of sentence may extend to 2 years. The sentence can also be limited to a fine without any term of imprisonment. For the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, the maximum punishment prescribed is 6 months and punishment can also be fine only.

The High Court in the impugned judgment after noticing the circumstances and the material evidence upheld the conviction and sentenced the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. The accused was also asked to pay compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs based on the assurance given by his counsel offering to compensate the victim's family.

Upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court modified the impugned judgment of the High Court while reducing the period of sentence to the sentence already suffered by him while he was in custody. Also, the court reduced the amount of compensation payable by him to the deceased family from Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to Rs. 50, 000/- upon acceding to the Appellant's argument to waive or reduce the compensation considering the fact he's a poor man aged man suffering from severe medical issues.

“Following the above, and the modification of sentence to the period undergone, the appellant, who is lodged currently in the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram, is ordered to be released forthwith. The appeal is disposed of with this order.”, the Court ordered.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. A. Noor Muhamed, AOR Mrs. Giffara S., Adv. Mr. M. Shareef Kp, Adv. Mr. Ck Prasad, Adv. Mr. A. Shukoor, Adv. Mr. A. Nowfal, Adv. Mr. Ka Shereef, Adv. Mr. Avaneesh Koyikkara, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Harshad V Hameed, Adv. Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Farhad Tehmu Marolia, Adv.

Case Title: GEORGE VERSUS STATE OF KERALA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 661

Click here to read/download the order