Special leave petition in the case of Surendran Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
In this case, the appeal for leave has been granted by the high court. Later this was against the judgment of the high court, which was dated 01.09.2015. This was dismissing the criminal revision which was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and also the sentence under section 279,337, 338 of IPC. Now, the case starts with the appellant on 16.02.1995. he is a driver who was driving the bus. on the same date caused an accident in which the car was injured (LB no. KL 10B 5634). After the car has injured the appellant was charged with the offense under sections 279,337 and 338 IPC. The First-Class Magistrate vide his judgment ( 28.04.1999) convicted the accused under Section 279 IPC and 338 IPC and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-.
The appeal which was filed by the appellant was dismissed by the session judge ( 29.09.2003). And then the criminal revision has been filed by the judgment given by the learned session judge. then that criminal revision petition has also been dismissed by the high court vide. then the high court has issued a notice on 01.08.2016 about the question regarding the sentence. After the notice was issued the service of the notice has been completed, but no one has appeared for the respondent. Then the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was a poor man, having 4 children and a wife and he is a sole bread earner. if he is sent to jail after more than 21 years then he will suffer an irreparable injury including his family.
And then the learned counsel for the appellant has placed the reliance on the judgments of cases like, A.P. Raju v. the State of Orissa, 1995 and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v. the State of M.P., (1990), then the court has considered whatever submission that’s been made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal of the learned counsel in favor by giving an example of judgment of Prakash Chandra Agnihotri case which was accepted by court and sentence of 6-month imprisonment and then was converted into fine. The court has observed that after 18 years of the occurrence of the incident the imprisonment will harsh the convict if he sent to jail.
The court also observed the following in para 1 of the judgment-
The court clarified that the conviction of the appellant was maintained under section 304-A IPC. They went through the judgment of the court and observed that there was no infirmity since the appellant was on bail throughout the period of 18 years. Therefore, to send the appellant to jail may harsh him the conviction was maintained but the double penalty (fine +imprisonment) was reduced to double the fine and revoke the imprisonment.
The court mentioned that fine of Rs- 2000 is to be paid to the family of the deceived girl. As it would be justice to the deceived. also ordered to deposit rs-2000 to the trial court within 2 months from the same date of judgment. which shall be disbursed to the parent of the deceased girl or the next kin of the girl in the case of absence of parents. And also mention that if the accused failed to pay the rs-2000 fine he must be sent to jail. As the incident took place more than 26 years, during this period convicted was on bail. Therefore, the court gave the decision in light of the evidence recorded under sections 279 and 338 IPC. The sentence of 6-month imprisonment and a fine of rs-500 under section 337.
The court observed no error in conviction recorded by the trial court and the conviction of the appellant was affirmed but keeping 26-years which was elapsed from the date of incidence the court was inclined to substitute the sentence of 6 months of imprisonment under sections 279 and 338 into fine of rs-1000 each with maintaining the sentence of fine of rs-500 under section 337 IPC.
In nutshell, the below court modified the judgment that the accused may deposit a fine of rs-1000 +1000=2000/-within one month period in the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal is partially allowed.