Supreme Court: No Minimum Sentence Required Under S.304A & 338 IPC; Modifies Sentence in Negligent Driving Case

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India recently altered the sentence of a convict found guilty of causing the death of a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident due to rash and negligent driving. The court reduced the sentence to the period already served by the convict in custody, emphasizing that no minimum sentence is prescribed under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Satish Chandra Sharma underscored that, according to these provisions, imprisonment is not mandatory, and a fine may suffice. The decision was influenced by the precedent set in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police (LL 2021 SC 279), which allowed the substitution of a prison term with a fine under similar circumstances.

Case Background and Charges

The appellant was arrested on May 10, 2024, and remained in custody for approximately 117 days before his conviction. The charges were based on a road accident in which the appellant, driving a mini lorry in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a motorcycle. The impact caused the pillion rider to fall, suffer grievous injuries, and subsequently die.

The appellant was convicted under several sections of the IPC, including:

• Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way),

• Section 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others),

• Section 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), and

• Section 304A (causing death by negligence).

Under Sections 304A and 338, no minimum sentence is prescribed, though the term may extend to two years. The punishment can also be limited to a fine without any imprisonment. For the offenses under Sections 279 and 337, the maximum sentence is six months, and a fine can substitute imprisonment.

High Court's Decision

In its judgment, the High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction after evaluating the evidence and circumstances. The court sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay Rs. 2.5 lakhs in compensation to the family of the deceased, as proposed by the appellant's counsel.

Supreme Court's Modified Ruling

Upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court modified the sentence, reducing it to the time already served by the appellant during his custody. The appellant, being an elderly man with severe medical conditions, argued for a waiver or reduction of the compensation amount, citing financial hardship. The Court accepted this plea, reducing the compensation from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000.

The judgment highlighted the flexibility allowed under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC, where imprisonment is not obligatory. The court acknowledged that the appellant had already served a considerable portion of his sentence and that further incarceration would be unnecessary under the circumstances.

In its final order, the Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the appellant, who had been lodged in the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram, and disposed of the appeal with this modification.

Key Points of the Judgment:

1. No Minimum Sentence: The Supreme Court reiterated that under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC, there is no mandatory minimum sentence. The law allows for either imprisonment or a fine, depending on the circumstances of the case.

2. Reduction of Compensation: The Court reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 50,000, taking into account the appellant’s age and medical condition, recognizing that the original amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs would be excessively burdensome.

3. Compassionate Consideration: The Court's decision reflected a humane approach, acknowledging the appellant’s personal and financial challenges while balancing the interests of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case exemplifies the discretionary power of the judiciary to tailor sentences based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case. By reducing the prison term to the time already served and decreasing the compensation amount, the Court demonstrated a balanced approach, considering both the legal framework and the appellant's personal hardships.

Case Title: George v. State of Kerala

Appearances:

• For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. A. Noor Muhamed, AOR, Mrs. Giffara S., Mr. M. Shareef Kp, Mr. Ck Prasad, Mr. A. Shukoor, Mr. A. Nowfal, Mr. Ka Shereef, and Mr. Avaneesh Koyikkara.

• For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harshad V Hameed, Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, and Mr. Farhad Tehmu Marolia.