Summary
Concurrent conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for a fatal road accident was not interfered with, but the six-month sentence of simple imprisonment was set aside by extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in lieu of which the appellant was directed to pay Rs 10,00,000 as compensation to the ten surviving legal heirs of the deceased, with the District Legal Services Authority directed to assist in disbursement.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for causing a pedestrian's death by rash and negligent driving called for interference.
- Whether, in a road-accident case without malicious intent, the sentence of imprisonment should be substituted by the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 coupled with compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Provisions considered
- Section 279, Indian Penal Code, 1860Rash or negligent driving on a public way endangering human life. The appellant's conviction under this provision, recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, was left undisturbed. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 11)
- Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860Causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The concurrent conviction for the pedestrian's death was not interfered with; only the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment was set aside. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 11)
- Benefit of probation, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958Accepting the submission that the incident was a road accident without malicious intent and that incarceration would serve no constructive purpose, the Court extended the benefit of the Act to the appellant, set aside the custodial sentence and, in lieu of that benefit, awarded Rs 10,00,000 compensation to the deceased's legal heirs. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
Held
- Considering the facts and circumstances, there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings convicting the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. (¶ 11)
- Where the incident is admittedly a road accident without any malicious intent, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended in place of the sentence of imprisonment, on the appellant paying reasonable compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, which benefits the family more than incarceration of the offender would. The sentence of six months' simple imprisonment was accordingly set aside and compensation of Rs 10,00,000 awarded in favour of the ten surviving legal heirs, to be deposited with the Trial Court within eight weeks and paid at Rs 1,00,000 to each heir. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
- Since the legal heirs were mostly agricultural workers or daily-wage labourers from underprivileged sections, the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority was directed, after due verification of the heirs, to assist them in opening bank accounts, ensure that the amounts are remitted to their accounts expeditiously, and file a status report before the Court within three months. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC maintained; sentence of six months' simple imprisonment set aside by extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; appellant to deposit Rs 10,00,000 with the Trial Court within eight weeks, Rs 1,00,000 to be paid to each of the ten legal heirs; Member Secretary, DLSA Ramanagara to verify the heirs, assist in opening bank accounts, ensure remittance and file a status report within three months of receipt of the order.