Supreme Court converts jail sentence to fine in 26-year-old rash driving case: Surendran vs. Sub-Inspector of Police (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 30 June 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 410

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Vineet Saran, J., and M.R. Shah, J.

Can a decades-old conviction for rash driving result in a jail sentence, or should the sentence be modified given the passage of time? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a bus driver, convicted for causing an accident in 1995, faced imprisonment more than two decades later. The Court considered whether the sentence of imprisonment should be substituted with a fine, considering the long delay between the incident and the final judgment.

The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Vineet Saran, and M.R. Shah. The judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

On February 16, 1995, a bus driven by the appellant, Surendran, bearing registration number KL7D 4770, was involved in an accident. The accident resulted in injuries to the driver of a car with registration number KL 10B 5634. Following the incident, Surendran was charged with offences under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted Surendran on April 28, 1999, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, with an additional one-month simple imprisonment in default under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Surendran’s appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on May 29, 2003. Subsequently, a Criminal Revision petition filed by Surendran in the High Court was also dismissed on September 1, 2015.

The appellant, Surendran, sought relief from the Supreme Court, primarily concerning the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted the appellant under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal against this conviction. The High Court also dismissed the Criminal Revision petition filed by the appellant, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, limited its consideration to the question of the sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 279: “Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” This section deals with rash or negligent driving on a public way.
• Section 337: “Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” This section addresses causing hurt by a rash or negligent act that endangers life.
• Section 338: “Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” This section pertains to causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act endangering life.

These sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are designed to address reckless behavior that can cause harm to others. The penalties vary depending on the severity of the harm caused.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant was the sole breadwinner of a poor family consisting of four children and his wife.
• It was contended that sending the appellant to jail after more than 21 years since the incident would cause irreparable harm to his family.
• The appellant’s counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 385 and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764, to support the argument that the sentence of imprisonment should be converted into a fine.

The appellant’s arguments focused on the severe impact of imprisonment on his family after such a long time, citing precedents where the Supreme Court had converted jail sentences to fines in similar situations.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be substituted with a fine, considering the long lapse of time since the incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the precedent set in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764, where a jail sentence was converted to a fine due to the long delay.
• The Court referred to A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 385, as a supporting authority for its decision.
• The Court considered Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to confirm the conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The significant delay of 26 years since the incident occurred.
• The fact that the appellant had been on bail throughout the proceedings.
• The need to avoid causing undue hardship to the appellant’s family.
• The precedent set by the Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764, where a similar sentence was converted to a fine after a long delay.

The Court’s decision was driven by a sense of fairness and the practical implications of imposing a jail sentence after such a long time.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Court noted that the incident occurred on 16.02.1995, i.e., more than 26 years ago.
• The Court observed that the appellant was on bail throughout the proceedings.
• The Court cited the judgment in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764, where a similar sentence was converted to a fine after 18 years.
• The Court stated, “We are of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the appellant to jail after 18 years of the occurrence.”, and applied this principle to the present case.
• The Court substituted the six months imprisonment under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with a fine of Rs. 1000 each.
• The sentence of fine under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was maintained.
• The Court directed the appellant to deposit the fine of Rs. 2000 within one month in the Trial Court.

Key Takeaways

• Long delays in the judicial process can be a significant factor in modifying sentences.
• The Supreme Court may convert jail sentences to fines, especially in cases where a significant amount of time has passed since the incident.
• The Court considers the impact of imprisonment on the accused’s family, particularly if the accused is the sole breadwinner.
• Precedents play a crucial role in judicial decision-making, especially in cases involving similar circumstances.
• This judgment highlights the court’s willingness to consider the practical implications of its decisions, balancing justice with the realities of individual circumstances.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to deposit a fine of Rs. 2000 in the Trial Court within one month.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where a significant amount of time has passed since the commission of an offence and the accused has been on bail, the Supreme Court may convert a sentence of imprisonment to a fine, especially when the accused is the sole breadwinner of a poor family. This decision reinforces the principle that the judiciary should consider the practical implications of its decisions and avoid causing undue hardship to individuals and families. This case also reaffirms the precedent set in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764, where the Supreme Court showed leniency in sentencing due to the passage of time.

Conclusion

In Surendran vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court modified the sentence of a bus driver convicted for rash driving in 1995. The Court, considering the 26-year delay and the appellant’s family circumstances, converted the jail sentence to a fine of Rs. 2000. This decision underscores the judiciary’s flexibility in sentencing, particularly when significant time has elapsed, and it reinforces the principle of balancing justice with practical realities. The judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to consider the impact of its decisions on individuals and families.