found guilty of causing death by his negligence, the
High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of
imprisonment
to 10 days without awarding any
compensation to the heirs of the deceased. We are of
the view that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the order of the High Court can be upheld only
with the modification that the accused will pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased
within six months. In default, he will undergo RI for six
months. The compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is being fixed
having regard to the limited financial resources of the
accused but the said compensation may not be
adequate for the heirs of the deceased.
In such
situation, in addition to the compensation to be paid by
the accused, the State can be required to pay
compensation under Section 357-A. As per judgment of
this Court in Suresh (supra), the scheme adopted by
the State of Kerala is applicable to all the States and
the said scheme provides for compensation upto Rs.5
lakhs in the case of death. In the present case, it will
be appropriate, in the interests of justice, to award
interim compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under Section 357-A
payable out of the funds available/to be made available
by the State of Madhya Pradesh with the District Legal
Services, Authority, Guna.
In case, the accused does
not pay the compensation awarded as above, the State
of Madhya Pradesh will pay the entire amount of
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs within three months after
expiry of the time granted to the accused.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.290 OF 2015
STATE OF M.P. V MEHTAAB
Dated;FEBRUARY 13, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1233 SC
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of
Madhya Pradesh against judgment and order dated 6 th
November, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.72 of 2007
reducing the sentence awarded to the respondent
under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”)
from RI for one year and under Section 337 IPC from RI
for three months to RI for 10 days which was the period
already undergone by him.
3.
On 22nd November, 1997, the deceased Sushila Bai
wife of PW 4 Ram Charan along with her husband was
returning from Village Ragho Garh to their home in
village Kudhaidher. The respondent accused had drawn
electricity wire from the pole upto his field which was
not visible in the darkness. Ram Charan got trapped in
the wire and became unconscious.
The deceased
Sushila Bai received electric shock in the process of
removing the wire. On receiving the information PW 5
Mishrilal, brother of Sushila Bai and PW 1 Kallu reached
the site of the incident along with PW 3 Goverdhan and
PW 2 Somlal.
It was found that Sushila Bai had died
while Ram Charan was injured but alive. He was taken
to the hospital.
was
conducted
FIR was lodged.
on
the
dead
Post mortem
body
and
after
investigation, the respondent accused was sent up for
trial under Section 304-A/337 IPC. The accused denied
the
allegations
and
alleged
that
he
was
falsely
implicated.
4.
The prosecution examined PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma
to the effect that the deceased and Ram Charan
received injuries by electric current and that Sushila Bai
had died due to shock of the current. PW 1 Kallu as well
as PW 4 Ram Charan clearly deposed that the wire was
laid by Mehtaab from the pole to the field which was
lying naked and resulted in the death of Sushila Bai.
This action clearly amounted to the offence alleged.
The said evidence was corroborated by the other
witnesses. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the
respondent-accused under Section 304A and 337 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and pay
fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further RI for one
month under Section 304-A and to undergo RI for three
months under Section 337 IPC.
The conviction and
sentence having been upheld by the Court of Session,
the respondent preferred a revision petition before the
High Court.
The respondent did not challenge his
conviction but only sought reduction in sentence of
imprisonment. The said prayer was accepted and the
sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
5.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
accused respondent had installed a transformer in his
field and left the electric wires naked which was a
negligent act.
The deceased Sushila Bai died on
account of the said naked wire which had high voltage
and was not visible in the dark.
The offence having
been fully proved by the evidence on record, the High
Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to 10
days which was not just and fair. Even if liberal view
on sentence of imprisonment was to be taken, the High
Court ought to have enhanced the sentence of fine and
awarded a reasonable compensation as a condition for
reduction of sentence.
8.
We find force in the submission. It is the duty of
the Court to award just sentence to a convict against
whom charge is proved.
While every mitigating or
aggravating circumstance may be given due weight,
mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already
undergone cannot be appreciated. Sentence has to be
fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and
the society.
consider
It is also the duty of the court to duly
the aspect
Unfortunately, these
of
rehabilitating
factors
are
the
victim.
missing
in
the
impugned order. No cogent reason has been assigned
for imposing only 10 days sentence when an innocent
life
has
been
lost.
Award
of
unreasonable
compensation has also not been considered. Apart from
the sentence and fine/compensation to be paid by the
accused, the Court has to award compensation by the
State under Section 357A when the accused is not in a
position to pay fair compensation as laid down by this
Court in Suresh vs. State of Haryana (Criminal
Appeal No.420 of 2012 decided on 28 th November,
2014). This Court held :
“14. We are of the view that it is the duty
of the Courts, on taking cognizance of a
criminal offence, to ascertain whether
there is tangible material to show
commission of crime, whether the victim is
identifiable and whether the victim of crime
needs immediate financial relief. On being
satisfied on an application or on its own
motion, the Court ought to direct grant of
interim compensation, subject to final
compensation being determined later.
Such duty continues at every stage of a
criminal case where compensation ought to
be given and has not been given,
irrespective of the application by the
victim. At the stage of final hearing it is
obligatory on the part of the Court to
advert to the provision and record a finding
whether a case for grant of compensation
has been made out and, if so, who is
entitled to compensation and how much.
Award of such compensation can be
interim. Gravity of offence and need of
victim are some of the guiding factors to be
kept in mind, apart from such other factors
as may be found relevant in the facts and
circumstances of an individual case. We
are also of the view that there is need to
consider upward revision in the scale for
compensation
and
pending
such
consideration to adopt the scale notified by
the State of Kerala in its scheme, unless
the scale awarded by any other State or
Union Territory is higher. The States of
Andhra
Pradesh,
Madhya
Pradesh,
Meghalaya and Telangana are directed to
notify their schemes within one month from
receipt of a copy of this order. We also
direct that a copy of this judgment be
forwarded to National Judicial Academy so
that all judicial officers in the country can
be imparted requisite training to make the
provision operative and meaningful.”
9.
As per information furnished by learned counsel
for the State, the accused Mehtaab has three sons and
he owns 10-12 bighas of land and his annual income
was Rs.35-40,000/-.
Similarly his sons were earning
Rs.25-30,000/- per annum.
The Court of Session has
mentioned the age of the deceased to be thirty years at
the time of her death in the year 1997.
As per
instructions of learned counsel for the State, deceased
is survived by her husband Ram Charan, two sons
Bundel Singh and Suraj Lal and two daughters Durgesh
Bai and Babita Bai.
10. As already observed, the respondent having been
found guilty of causing death by his negligence, the
High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of
imprisonment
to
10
days
without
awarding
any
compensation to the heirs of the deceased. We are of
the view that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the order of the High Court can be upheld only
with
the modification
that
the
accused will
pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased
within six months. In default, he will undergo RI for six
months. The compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is being fixed
having regard to the limited financial resources of the
accused but the said compensation may not be
adequate for the heirs of the deceased.
In such
situation, in addition to the compensation to be paid by
the accused, the State can be required to pay
compensation under Section 357-A. As per judgment of
this Court in Suresh (supra), the scheme adopted by
the State of Kerala is applicable to all the States and
the said scheme provides for compensation upto Rs.5
lakhs in the case of death. In the present case, it will
be appropriate, in the interests of justice, to award
interim compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under Section 357-A
payable out of the funds available/to be made available
by the State of Madhya Pradesh with the District Legal
Services, Authority, Guna.
In case, the accused does
not pay the compensation awarded as above, the State
of Madhya Pradesh will pay the entire amount of
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs within three months after
expiry of the time granted to the accused.
11. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above
extent.
..........................................J.
[T.S. THAKUR]
...........................................J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 13, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment