SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, VINEET SARAN, M.R.SHAH, JJ.
SURENDRAN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2021(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5985 of 2016)
Decided on : 30-06-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279 and 338 – Injury caused by rash and negligent driving – Conviction and sentence – Counsel for appellant contends that appellant is sole bread earning member of a poor family consisting of four children and his wife – It is submitted that appellant if sent to jail after more than 21 years, will suffer irreparable injury – No error in conviction recorded by Trial Court – Conviction of appellant affirmed, however, looking to facts and circumstances of present case specially fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, Court inclined to substitute sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into fine – Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC maintained. (Paras 6, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been filed against Judgment of High Court dated 01.09.2015 dismissing Criminal Revision filed by appellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Appeal is confined only to question of sentence.
Findings of Court:
Incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
Key Points: - The Court indicates that sentence can be reduced or modified in view of mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused. (!) - The incident occurred in 1995 (more than 26 years ago); Court considers substituting imprisonment with a fine due to passage of time and holding it would be harsh to jail after long lapse. (!) (!) - The judgment confirms conviction under sections 279, 338, and 337 IPC but modifies punishment by converting six months imprisonment under sections 279 and 338 into fines (Rs.1000 each) while maintaining the fine under section 337 IPC at Rs.1000; overall, sentence modified but conviction upheld. (!)
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 01.09.2015 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
3. The appellant, a bus driver, while driving bus No.KL7D 4770 caused an accident on 16.02.1995 in which car driver of KL 10B 5634 was injured. The appellant was charged with offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate vide his judgment dated 28.04.1999 convicted the accused under Section 279 IPC and 338 IPC and sentence him to undergo six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-was imposed, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 337 IPC.
4. An appeal was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.05.2003. Criminal Revision was filed in the High Court challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge which Criminal Revision petition has been dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015.
5. This Court on 01.08.2016 issued notice only on the question of sentence. Service of notice is complete but no one has appeared for respondent.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is sole bread earning member of a poor family consisting of four children and his wife. It is submitted that the appellant if sent to jail after more than 21 years, will suffer irreparable injury.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 385 and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
9. The judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri (Supra) as relied by learned counsel for the appellant does support his submissions. In the above case, the accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304A. This Court converted the sentence of imprisonment into fine of Rs.500/-. The Court was of the view that it would be harsh to send the appellant to the Jail after 18 years of the occurrence. Following was observed in paragraph 1 of the judgment: -
10. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337.
11. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under S
Sentence can be reduced in view of mitigating circumstances in favour of accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to confine the sentence to a fine only, based on the sentencing structure provided in the relevant sections of IPC, and th....
The court can modify sentences based on the nature of the offense and the age of the accused.
Court upheld conviction for reckless driving but modified sentence based on humanitarian grounds considering age and time served.
The court established that in cases of negligence leading to death, the sentence can be adjusted based on the defendant's personal circumstances and the duration of the legal proceedings.
The court considered the revisionist's request for a lenient view due to the matter relating to the year 2006 and his health condition, and accordingly, altered/modified the sentence imposed.
Concurrent findings of fact from lower courts were upheld, establishing liability under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
The court confirmed earlier convictions while modifying the sentence to a fine based on the elapsed time since the offence.
The court modified the sentence for the accused to the period already undergone, considering the lengthy trial and the age of the accused, emphasizing justice over punishment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.