Kerala High Court Asks 65-Year-Old Convicted For Causing Death By Negligent Driving To Do Community Service, Applies Probation Of Offenders Act

Justice G. Girish held that there was no legal embargo for the Court to invoke its power under the Act to release a person who was convicted under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence in appropriate cases to meet the ends of the justice.

“Thus, there is absolutely no legal embargo in resorting to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in cases where the accused are convicted and sentenced for the commission of an offence under Section 304A I.P.C, if the situation so warrants in view of the nature of the crime, stage of the case and the conduct of the accused prior to and after the incident.”

The Court also observed that invoking provisions under the Act to release persons where a conviction was made under Section 279 and 304A IPC was rare because of the rise in road accidents and for ensuring the safety of the public, including pedestrians. The Court while ordering his release under the Act, imposed several conditions on him. The petitioner was directed to render community service at the District Hospital, Pathanamthitta and he was also ordered to compensate the legal heirs of the victim by paying a compensation of rupees ten thousand.

“The petitioner shall, during the above period of three years, remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Pathanamthitta, and render community service at the District Hospital, Pathanamthitta at least four days every month, starting from January 2024.”

The criminal revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the Sessions Court that upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner was convicted and imposed with simple imprisonment for one year under Section 279 IPC (rash driving or riding in a public way) and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) and the sentences were to run concurrently.

The allegation was that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner through the road near Pathanamthitta traffic island which led to the death of a person. 

On the revisional power, the Court observed that it cannot reverse the findings unless the decision rendered earlier was perverse, untenable in law or was grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable. Relying upon the Apex Court decisions in State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri (1999), Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Another (2015) and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018), the Court stated that there was no scope of interference with the findings of the Magistrate Court and Sessions Court which led to the conviction of the petitioner.

The Court took note of the fact that the incident took place in the year 2001 and the petitioner, who is now aged 65 years is suffering from various physical ailments. But, it also stated that elapse of time is not a ground to trivialize the seriousness of a crime to take a lenient view.

The Court considered various factual circumstances of the case, it noted that the petitioner took the deceased person to the hospital after the accident and that he was at the forefront for getting him medical help. It also noted that the petitioner cooperated with the investigation. The Court considered the nature of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner before and after the commission of the offence. The Court also took note of the age and the physical ailments of the petitioner for taking a lenient view. The Court further noted that he has no previous antecedents and there were no legal impediments in invoking the Probation of Offenders Act to release the petitioner.

“However, in an appropriate case, where the litigation has been pending for decades, and the conduct of the accused is not tainted by the involvement in any similar offence either prior to the accident, or during the long period of court proceedings at various forums after the accident, there is absolutely no bar for invoking Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 if the facts and circumstances of the case require such a measure to meet the ends of justice.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and he was released on probation of good conduct.

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate V Philip Mathew

Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecutor Sanal P Raj

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 657

Case title: Saji Charivukala Puthenveedu v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1895 OF 2006

Click Here To Read/Download The Order