DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
June 30,2021.
JUDGES:
Ashok Bhushan, Vineet Sarin, M.R. Shah
CRUX:
Sunderan vs. Sub-inspector of police- The Supreme Court ruled in the case that imprisoning the bus driver who caused the accident was too harsh because the case was tried 26 years after the tragedy. Instead of Rs. 500/- and six months in prison (as held by the Sessions Court and later the High Court), the bus driver was fined Rs. 2000.
PARTIES:
Appellant: Sunderan
Respondent: Sub inspector of police.
SUBJECT
The following judgement deals with Section 279, 337,338 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes rash driving on a public way and causing hurt to a person because of negligence. This appeal was filed against the High Court judgement where the appellant was convicted under Section 279, Section 337, and Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
AN OVERVIEW
- On 16.02.1995, the appellant, a bus driver, caused an accident in which a vehicle driver from KL 10B 5634 was wounded by driving bus No.KL7D 4770. The appellant was accused of violating Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, in his decision dated 28.04.1999, found the accused guilty under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to six months in jail and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which he was sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment under Section 337 IPC.
- The appellant sought an appeal, but the learned Sessions Judge in a ruling dated May 29, 2003, dismissed it. The learned Sessions Judge's verdict was challenged in the High Court; however, the Criminal Revision petition was dismissed by the High Court in the impugned judgement of September 1, 2015.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 279 of Indian Penal Code: Rash driving or riding on a public way. Whoever drives or rides a vehicle on a public way in a reckless or negligent manner that endangers human life or is likely to cause harm or injury to another person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
Section 337 of Indian Penal Code: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever causes harm to another person by acting rashly or negligently in such a way as to jeopardise human life or the personal safety of others shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term up to six months, or a fine up to five hundred rupees, or both.
Section 338 of Indian Penal Code: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever causes grievous harm to another person by acting rashly or negligently in such a way as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others is subject to imprisonment of either description for a term up to two years, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
In this case, a bus driver who was accused of causing an accident through reckless driving 26 years ago was fined Rs. 2000 by the Supreme Court. In this judgment, the court has dealt with several provisions of the Indian Penal Code to find out if the conviction provided by the trial court was just.
1. The major argument from the appellant's learned counsel maintained that the appellant is the single bread-earning member of an impoverished household of four children and his wife. The appellant is said to suffer irreparable injuries if put to prison after more than 21 years. The appellants' counsel relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995 where the court found that the occurrence of the incident was 15 years ago and the appellant was on bail for 8 years, seeing the court ordered his release under CRPC Section 360.
2. The appellant’s counsel also relied upon the judgement of Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus the State of M.P. The accused was convicted in the aforesaid case and punished under Section 304A for six months. The Court turned the jail sentence into a fine of Rs.500/-. After 18 years after the incident, the Court considered it difficult to send the appellant to jail.
3. The court quoted the first paragraph from Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P, which said that; the appellant was sentenced to a severe jail of six months and an Rs.250 fine. The court believed that after 18 years of the event, it would be quite difficult to put the appellant to jail.
4. If an appellant were required to pay Rs.2000/- for a fine, the objectives of justice would be satisfied. This transforms the penalty into an Rs.2000/- fine. The money is paid to the family of the girl who died when it is realised. In a period of two months from the date of the judgement, the sum shall be paid to the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall disburse the same for the girl's parents and the girl's nearest kin in the absence of parents. The appellant shall be imprisoned for six months for failure to pay the fine.
5. The court relied on the judgement of Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus the State of M.P and said that it would be harsh to send the appellant to jail after 26 years of the incident.
6. The court said that the trial court has recorded the conviction and gave six months' jail term under Sections 279, 338 and a fine of Rs. 500/- according to Sections 337. The court clarified that they do not find any error with the conviction by the trial court.
7. However, after looking into the facts of the case and the judgment of Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P and especially the fact that 26 years have passed since the incident happened the court substituted the sentence of six months under Section 279 and 338 to a fine of RS/- 1000 each, that is 2000 rupees and were to be submitted under one months period.
CONCLUSION
- Criminal liability is created by accidents due to the rashness or negligence of the motorist. A driver has the ultimate obligation to drive or drive his vehicle. Such a person is prima facie guilty of carelessness if the car is hit by anything or anyone other than an explanation that he has done his utmost to maintain control over the vehicle, but the incident was unavoidable.
- Maybe this is the situation where we emphasise the flaw of the slow and delayed justice system in India. Though the judgment was a fair and just, delay of moving from trial courts to the High Court and later Supreme Court made a gap of 26 years between occurrence and justice and these 26 years played an important part in serving of the final judgement.
