In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India modified the sentence of a convict involved in a fatal road accident caused by rash and negligent driving.

The convict, who had been sentenced to simple imprisonment by the High Court, had his sentence reduced to the period already served in custody.

The apex court highlighted that there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with causing death and grievous hurt by negligence.

The case involved the driver of a mini lorry who, due to rash driving, collided with a motorcycle. The pillion rider on the motorcycle sustained serious injuries and tragically passed away.

The convict was arrested on May 10, 2024, and had already spent 117 days in custody before the appeal was heard.

The convict was charged under several sections of the IPC:

• Section 304A: This section deals with causing death by negligence. While the term of imprisonment may extend to two years, there is no mandatory minimum sentence. Courts have the discretion to impose a fine instead of imprisonment in such cases.
• Section 338: This section addresses causing grievous hurt by negligent actions. Like Section 304A, it also allows for discretion in sentencing, with imprisonment extending up to two years or a fine.
• Sections 279 and 337: These sections deal with rash driving and causing hurt by negligence. The maximum sentence for these offenses is six months, but a fine can also be imposed without any imprisonment.

The bench, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, relied on the precedent set in the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police (2021 LL SC 279).

Based on this, the court substituted the convict’s sentence with a fine, taking into account the fact that he had already been in custody for 117 days.

High Court’s Judgment

Initially, the High Court had upheld the conviction and sentenced the appellant to six months of simple imprisonment.

Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 2.5 lakh as compensation to the victim’s family.

This compensation was based on an assurance given by the appellant’s lawyer during the trial.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

In the appeal, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the time already served by the appellant during custody.

The court also reduced the compensation payable by the convict from Rs. 2.5 lakh to Rs. 50,000, considering the appellant’s poor financial condition and his serious medical issues.

The court ordered the immediate release of the convict, who was lodged in the Central Prison and Correctional Home in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

The judgment emphasized the flexibility that Indian law provides in sentencing under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC, particularly in cases where the convict has already suffered significantly in terms of imprisonment and financial hardship.

Verdict

This judgment underscores the discretion that courts in India can exercise when sentencing individuals under Sections 304A and 338 IPC, where no minimum sentence is mandated.

It also highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the accused, including financial condition and health, when determining the severity of punishment.