Deterrence Guides Sentencing for Death by Rash Driving; Six-Month Term Upheld: Supreme Court

On 10.01.1999 a bus driven by the appellant on the Bangalore-Hindupur road struck a seven-year-old girl, who died (para 2). He was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment with fine; his appeal failed, but the High Court in revision reduced the Section 304A sentence to six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, most of it payable to a member of the child's family (para 2). This Court issued notice only on sentence, but the appellant also sought acquittal, arguing that the child ran onto the road, the bus moved slowly and res ipsa loquitur cannot apply in a criminal case (paras 3-4).

All three courts had concurrently found rash and negligent driving, and the Court declined to reappreciate the evidence (paras 6, 8). The claim that the bus moved at 15-20 km per hour had rightly been rejected (para 7). The body lay two feet from the bus near the right-side pavement, the bus had no mechanical failure, and the appellant did not plead an error of judgment (para 8). An eyewitness's account, the unchallenged mahazar and brake marks of 20-25 feet supported the finding (para 9). Syad Akbar was not apposite: there the maxim was not applied because the case involved an error of judgment and a convincing explanation, and its pragmatic use to infer a fact is subject to the rules governing circumstantial evidence (para 9). The Court noted that the principle had been applied in C. Uma Maheswara Rao under the Prevention of Corruption Act (para 9). On sentence, Dalbir Singh calls for deterrence in Section 304A cases (para 12), and Rattan Singh for a corrective sentencing policy for drivers (para 13).