A Karnataka auto-rickshaw driver Sharath approached the Supreme Court challenging his conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 304-A in a fatal accident case. The Bench discussed victim compensation, observing that a life lost cannot be valued cheaply and stressed the seriousness of the loss.
A Karnataka-based auto-rickshaw driver, Sharath, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a fatal road accident case. Along with contesting the finding of guilt, he has also sought the benefit of probation on the ground that he is a first-time offender.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) questions an April 2, 2026 judgment of the Karnataka High Court. In that decision, the High Court upheld Sharath’s conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death, but reduced his substantive sentence to six months’ imprisonment.
At the hearing, the discussion also turned to compensation to be paid to the victim’s family. Noting that the deceased was an auto-rickshaw driver, the Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria emphasized the seriousness of the loss. “A poor auto driver lost his life,” Justice Mehta observed.
When counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Anantha Narayana M.G., suggested that his client could pay Rs 3.5 lakh as compensation, the Court responded,
“Life is not so cheap, Sir. Even Rs. 10 lakhs would not be sufficient.”
Counsel then requested time to obtain instructions from the petitioner, stating, “I will put it before my client.” The Bench directed, “Render and come back.“
On the merits of the challenge, the petitioner argues that his conviction is not sustainable because it is based on inconsistent and contradictory evidence. According to the prosecution, on October 24, 2014, Sharath was driving a Maruti Ritz car when he allegedly hit one Anil Nazarath, who later died due to injuries sustained in the accident.
Sharath maintains that the accident was not caused by his vehicle and asserts that a lorry was responsible for the incident. He contends that he has been falsely implicated and points to alleged material inconsistencies relating to the manner of the accident, the position of the deceased, and the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
The plea further argues that the trial court relied primarily on interested witnesses and improperly shifted the burden of proof by drawing adverse inferences against him. It also questions the High Court’s reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, submitting that the principle is generally associated with civil proceedings and, by itself, cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction.
In addition to challenging the conviction, Sharath has urged the Supreme Court to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He states that he is a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents and that he is the sole breadwinner for a family consisting of two minor school-going children and an aged mother suffering from severe kidney ailments.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Elangovan v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2023), he argues that similarly placed offenders convicted under Section 304-A IPC have previously been granted probation.
The petition raises issues concerning the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, whether adverse inferences can be drawn against an accused, the scope of res ipsa loquitur in criminal prosecutions, and the circumstances in which probation should be considered for first-time offenders convicted of causing death by negligence.
Case Title: Sharath v. The State of Karnataka
