The Supreme Court upheld a six-month jail sentence under Section 304A IPC for a hit-and-run case where the accused’s rash and negligent driving caused the death of a man and injuries to his son. Rejecting the plea to convert the sentence into a fine, the court noted that the accused’s actions were reckless, as evidenced by witness testimonies, a 24-foot-wide road, and the vehicle dragging the victim’s motorcycle for 15 feet. Despite the accused’s plea for leniency citing family responsibilities, the court emphasized accountability for such acts, stating, “The present case is not fit for extending sympathy and taking a lenient view.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a tragic hit-and-run case, the Supreme Court rejected the accused’s plea to convert a six-month jail sentence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) into a fine. The court observed that the accused’s rash and negligent driving led to the death of a man and injuries to his son.
The case involved an appeal by the petitioner against a Karnataka High Court judgment. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s criminal revision plea, upholding the sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 304A IPC and a fine of Rs 1,000 under Section 279 IPC.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, remarked:
“The Reports annexed coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses does indicate that the conduct of the accused was indeed a rash and negligent one.”
According to the prosecution, the accused was driving a Qualis vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. He hit a TVS motorcycle from behind, driven by Dinesh Kailaje, who had his son as a pillion rider. Tragically, Kailaje succumbed to grievous injuries, while his son sustained minor injuries. Based on eyewitness accounts, the police registered a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC.
The trial court found the accused guilty, sentencing him to a fine of Rs 1,000 under Section 279 IPC, with one-month simple imprisonment in case of default. Additionally, six months’ simple imprisonment was imposed for the offense under Section 304A IPC. The High Court later upheld this judgment.
The petitioner claimed that the accident resulted from contributory negligence and questioned the reliability of the witnesses, stating that they were related to the deceased. He also highlighted that:
“The petitioner is 48 years old, doing a small business, and has old, aged ailing parents. He is the sole breadwinner of his family.”
He argued that Section 304A IPC allows for fines as punishment and sought leniency given his circumstances.
The court relied on the post-mortem report, which revealed the cause of death as blunt force trauma leading to cranio-cerebral injuries. The deceased had suffered 19 wounds. Referring to the evidence, the Bench remarked that the road, being 24 feet wide, provided ample space for safe driving.
It observed that the accused’s vehicle had dragged the victim’s motorcycle for about 15 feet, indicating the high speed and recklessness of the accused.
The court also noted the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
“In our considered opinion, the Petitioner has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by him. The High Court and the Courts below are right in concluding that the act of the Petitioner was a rash and negligent one and have thereby rightly convicted the accused Petitioner,”
-the Bench held.
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for leniency, the Supreme Court stated:
“In our considered opinion, the present case is not fit for extending sympathy and taking a lenient view, especially considering that the said rash and negligent act of the accused has caused the death of one person as well as injuries to one other.”
The Bench emphasized that such offenses demand accountability and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the six-month sentence.
CASE TITLE:
James v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1038)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Hit-and-Run Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
