Convictions under Section 304-A IPC may permit probation for first-time offenders, balancing justice and rehabilitation, especially in negligence-based cases lacking mens rea.

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Revision challenges the concurrent findings of conviction for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru in C.C. No.124 of 2016 by Judgment dated 05.04.2023, as affirmed in Crl.A. No.127 of 2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Judgment dated 09.08.2023. While testing the conviction on the settled parameters of revisional scrutiny, this Court is also invited, on the strength of subsequent developments and legal submissions, to consider extension of probationary relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (“hereinafter referred to PO Act”) in exercise of powers under Section 11 thereof.

2. Gist of the Trial Court Judgment in C.C. No.124 of 2016:

2.1. On 15.07.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., on the Kallanai–

Thiruvaiyaru Main Road at Ambedkar Nagar, the accused drove a Maruti Omni van bearing registration No.TN-48-Z-1788 rashly and negligently, struck one Madhivanan standing near his house, causing his death on the spot. Thus, attracting Section 304-A IPC.

2.2. Eleven witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecutions as P.W-1 to P.W-11, through whom exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. Among which P.W.2 to P.W5 were eye witnesses, who supported the occurrence. P.W.9, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, through Motor Vehicle Inspection report (Ex.P5) ruled out mechanical defect; Doctor (P.W-8) opined death due to shock/haemorrhage (Ex.P-4); P.W-10 is the Inspector who registered the FIR (Ex.P-6) and I.O. (P.W-11 / Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8) proved investigation.

2.3. The learned Trial Court convicted the accused, found guilty u/s 304-A IPC and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., 1973, if applicable.

3. Gist of the learned First Appellate Judgment in C.A. No. 127 of 2023:

All principal grounds such as delay, investigation by S.I., contradictions, interested witnesses, were rejected. The learned Appellate Court affirmed that the accident on the mud shoulder/housefront occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused; identification was consistent; no mechanical defect; medical and investigative materials corroborated ocular account. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

4. Grounds in Criminal Revision:

Concurrent findings are perverse/against evidence. Delay in FIR;

non-examination of the S.I. who registered FIR is fatal. Investigation allegedly by Sub-Inspector contrary to “prescribed law.” Material contradictions like EB post/Ambedkar board damage; discrepancy in registration number of the vehicle involved (TN-48-Z-1788 vs “1888”/“TN-45”) not considered. PW.6’s signature narrative contradicts mahazar; fabrication alleged. Witnesses are relatives/neighbours (interested witnesses). Negligence allegedly that of the deceased; presence of eye-witnesses doubtful. Prayed for acquittal; alternatively, extension of PO Act, 1958, benefit suggesting compensation to be paid to the victim's family.

5. Submissions:

5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the variations in vehicle number and impact points; “interested” witnesses; bus-stop not shown in mahazar; alleged defects in the timing and authorship of complaint; investigation by S.I. assailed. He further submitted to consider the clean antecedents of the revision petitioner and that offence under 304-A IPC attracts no mens rea and only prescribes maximum 2 years without any statutory minimum sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is now prepared to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as ex-gratia payment, exclusive of other amount / compensation which they are entitled to receive under any law.

5.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that, ocular account consistent and pointed out that in the presence of th