Bombay High Court: The instant revision application was filed against the judgment and conviction of the applicant, who was then a teenager, for rash and negligent driving and causing fatal accident of a woman 11 years ago. The single-Judge Bench of S.G. Mehare*, J., had to consider, “whether the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be extended to the applicant?”.
The Court perused the judgments of JMIC and Sessions Court and found that they were not perverse. However, considering precedents, the Court observed that benefit under Section 4 must be evaluated subject to the facts and circumstances of a case.
Considering the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, the applicant’s bright future, his apprehension regarding ruined future due to the stigma attached to convictions, and that the applicant was a first-time offender, the Court while upholding the decisions of the JMIC and Sessions Court, ordered the release of the applicant subjecting him to fines that were required to be paid for the offences he was upheld to be convicted of.
Background
The applicant who at the time of the incident, had recently attained the age of majority was riding a new motorbike (without a registration number), and collided with the deceased seated on a chair in front of her house, thereby injuring her. The post-mortem report concluded that the death was due to the injuries sustained through the collusion.
The applicant was convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), Sections 3 read with Sections 181, 50(1), 177, 4 and 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MVA”) by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (“JMIC”) which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (“Sessions Court”).Court’s analysis The Court emphasised that the invocation of a revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”), was limited to the instances where the convict had satisfied the Court of glaring defects in the procedure, manifest error on the point of law, that resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.
The Court noted that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident.
The Court examined both judgments, of the JMIC and of the Sessions Court, and viewed that they had correctly held that the ingredients of Section 304-A have been proven, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur also supported the prosecution. The Court concluded that neither judgment was perverse, illegal or improper.
Issue before the Court
Whether the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (“Section 4 benefit”) could be extended to the Petitioner?
Issue answered
The Court referred to the Prem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh1, wherein, the Supreme Court had extended the Section 4 benefit to the convict for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, considering the convict was a first-time offender.
Further, the Court referred to Raghunath Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2006 SCC OnLine Ori 299, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Orissa High Court of having extended the Section 4 benefit to the convict-bus driver, who was a young man and the only breadwinner of his family.
Furthermore, the Court referred to Vijay v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the instant Court relied on Aitha Chander Rao v. State of A.P., 1981 SCC (Cri) 637, holding that the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC was within the purview of benefit under Section 4 which was accordingly extended.
In the light of all the facts and submissions, the Court said that benefit under Section 4 should not be disregarded, however, its extension shall be made depending upon the facts of the case.
Final observations and judgment
The Court noted that at the time of the incident, the applicant had recently turned 18, and being a teenager, he might have driven the new vehicle for the first time; and being excited and happy, he might have lost control. The applicant otherwise had no reason to take the vehicle away from the road and cause an accident; mens rea is absent in such cases.
The Court stated that the applicant has a bright future and is apprehensive of the stigma of conviction that may ruin his future. He was a first-time offender and had no antecedents. Therefore, the Court opined that it was expedient to release him on probation under the Section 4
The Court upheld the decision of JMIC and Sessions Court, however, releasing the applicant on a bond with a surety for one year to receive sentence when called upon, and maintain peace and good behaviour. Furthermore, the Court directed that fines paid for the offences punishable under the MVA should be forfeited to the Government and the fine amount for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC must be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
[Akshay v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2169, decided on 15-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice S.G. Mehare
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel, S.R. Sapkal, Advocate
For the respondent: P.J. Bharad, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. 2017 DGLS (SC)1396
2. 2007 BCI 391
