2012 (8) TMI 1186 - SC - Indian Laws

Commission of offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) - Driving by a drunken person - without licence - Six persons died due to the rash and negligent driving - Fog at the spot poor visibility and speed - American driving licence - gravity of the offence - premeditation - whether the offence falls under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code or Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code from the facts - HELD THAT - Assuming that there was presence of fog it was a duty of the accused either to stop the vehicle if the visibility was poor or he should have been more cautious and driven the vehicle carefully in a lesser speed so that it would not have blurred his vision. This never happened since the accused was in an inebriated state and the fact that six persons died practically on the spot would indicate that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed. The plea of fog even if its presence had been established would only weaken the defence case and the trial court and the High Court had rightly rejected that plea. A person who is conversant in driving a motor vehicle in the United States and European countries may not be familiar with the road conditions in India. In India the driver is always on the defensive due to various reasons. Pedestrians in India seldom use footpaths nor respect Zebra lines or traffic lights two wheelers auto-rickshaws cyclists and street-vendors are common sights on Indian roads. A driver in Indian roads should expect the unexpected always therefore the plea that the accused has an American driving licence is not an answer for driving in Indian roads unless it is recognized in India or that person is having a driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority in India. We have to necessarily draw an inference that the accused was not conversant in driving a vehicle on the Indian roads in the absence of an Indian licence at the time of the accident. In any view in the instant case we have already found that the accused was in an inebriated state therefore the question whether he knew driving is not of much consequence. Assuming that Shri Ram Jethmalani is right in contending that while he was driving the vehicle in a drunken state he had no intention or knowledge that his action was likely to cause death of six human beings in our view at least immediately after having hit so many human beings and the bodies scattered around he had the knowledge that his action was likely to cause death of so many human beings lying on the road unattended. To say still he had no knowledge about his action is too childish which no reasonable man can accept as worthy of consideration. So far as this case is concerned it has been brought out in evidence that the accused was in an inebriated state after consuming excessive alcohol he was driving the vehicle without licence in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed which resulted in the death of six persons. The accused had sufficient knowledge that his action was likely to cause death and such an action would in the facts and circumstances of this case fall under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code and the trial court has rightly held so and the High Court has committed an error in converting the offence to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. We may now examine the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and decide as to whether the punishment awarded by the High Court is commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Respondent accused is guilty u/s 304 Part II or u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Examination of facts and evidence.
3. Prosecution and defense arguments.
4. Determination of appropriate sentencing.

Summary:

1. Whether the Respondent accused is guilty u/s 304 Part II or u/s 304A of IPC:
The Supreme Court deliberated whether the Respondent accused should be convicted u/s 304 Part II of IPC, as decided by the Trial Court, or u/s 304A of IPC, as held by the High Court. The High Court had reduced the sentence to two years, disbelieving the testimony of Sunil Kulkarni, which was crucial for the Trial Court's decision.

2. Examination of facts and evidence:
On the night of 9/10.01.1999, the Respondent driving a BMW car caused an accident resulting in the death of six persons and injury to one. The prosecution provided evidence of rash and negligent driving, the presence of alcohol in the Respondent's blood, and attempts to destroy evidence post-accident. Despite material witnesses turning hostile, the Trial Court relied on Sunil Kulkarni's testimony, corroborated by the scene of the crime, to convict the Respondent u/s 304 Part II IPC.

3. Prosecution and defense arguments:
The prosecution argued that the Respondent, without a valid driving license and under the influence of alcohol, drove rashly and negligently, knowing the likely fatal consequences, thus fulfilling the criteria for u/s 304 Part II IPC. The defense contended mitigating circumstances such as the Respondent's age, lack of criminal record, compensation paid to victims' families, and the foggy conditions at the time of the accident, arguing for the conviction u/s 304A IPC.

4. Determination of appropriate sentencing:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Respondent had knowledge that his actions could cause death, thus falling under u/s 304 Part II IPC. However, considering mitigating factors, the Court maintained the sentence awarded by the High Court, which the Respondent had already undergone. Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 50 lakh to be paid to the Union of India for compensating victims of motor accidents and mandated two years of community service, failing which the Respondent would face further imprisonment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC but maintained the sentence awarded by the High Court. The Respondent was also directed to pay Rs. 50 lakh and perform community service, with default conditions leading to additional imprisonment.