The Calcutta High Court, affirming Supreme Court precedent, held that while the Probation of Offenders Act is generally not applicable to offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC, exceptional circumstances—such as significant passage of time and absence of criminal antecedents—may warrant substitution of imprisonment with compensation. This judgment narrows the absolute bar, modifies the sentence, and sets a template for future sentencing in similar cases involving motor vehicle accidents.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/720/2014 of MAHAMMAD SAIDUL SHAIKH @ MD. SAIDUL SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0672792014 |
| Date of Registration | 01-12-2014 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Motor Vehicle Accidents, Sentencing, Probation of Offenders Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reaffirmed that ordinarily, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable in cases involving conviction under Sections 279/304-A IPC as per Supreme Court decisions. However, based on exceptional factors such as the passage of 15 years since the incident, the appellant’s lack of prior convictions, and the Supreme Court’s approach in Sanjoy Calaro v. State of Karnataka (2025), the sentence was modified. The appellant was ordered to pay compensation in lieu of imprisonment, subject to compliance, thus demonstrating judicial discretion for sentence modification in similar factual contexts. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s reasoning that accidents involving rash and negligent driving causing death do not ordinarily merit release under the Probation of Offenders Act (Dalbir Singh, Thakur Singh). But also noted the approach of awarding compensation as seen in Sanjoy Calaro v. State of Karnataka under exceptional facts. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
In 2009, a private bus driven by the appellant hit a scooterist from behind, resulting in death. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304-A IPC. On appeal, the conviction was challenged on grounds of evidence, investigation, and applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act in sentencing. The High Court confirmed conviction, but modified the sentence from imprisonment to payment of compensation, given the passage of time and absence of prior offences. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court on sentence modification in 304-A IPC matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that, following Supreme Court precedent, Probation of Offenders Act normally does not apply to Section 304-A IPC convictions.
- Recognizes judicial discretion to modify sentences—including substitution with compensation—in exceptional circumstances, such as long delay since incident and no prior convictions.
- Provides a model for sentence modification upon payment of compensation, aligned with recent Supreme Court practice (Sanjoy Calaro).
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to seek similar modifications in long-pending cases with mitigating factors.
- Emphasizes that compensation to the victim’s family can be enforced as an alternative to incarceration in specific, justified scenarios.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed evidence and upheld the conviction for negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC; the doctrine of maintaining a safe distance was applied.
- It examined the Probation of Offenders Act’s applicability, citing Supreme Court cases (Thakur Singh, Dalbir Singh) which hold that benefit of probation is generally excluded for Section 304-A IPC offences involving road deaths.
- The judgment reviewed exceptional circumstances—passage of significant time, no further criminal conduct, the appellant’s age, and lack of antecedents.
- Relying on Sanjoy Calaro v. State of Karnataka (2025), where the Supreme Court substituted imprisonment with compensation, the court modified the sentence.
- The court ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the victim’s legal heirs, with an alternative of undergoing the reduced sentence (from 2 years to 1 year imprisonment) in case of default.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Contended that the investigation was perfunctory; the real identity of the driver was not ascertained.
- Argued that evidence did not establish rash and negligent driving.
- Stated that the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act should be considered given the sentence and circumstances.
- Asserted doubts regarding the appellant’s involvement.
Respondent (State):
- Argued the incident was caused by rash and negligent driving, resulting in death.
- Highlighted that multiple and credible witness testimonies corroborated the prosecution’s case.
- Invoked Supreme Court authority that the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied to such offences (Thakur Singh).
- Sought dismissal of the appeal.
Factual Background
In September 2009, a private bus struck a 65-year-old scooterist from behind in Kolkata, resulting in his death. The FIR was registered under Sections 279, 427, and 304 IPC and, after investigation, the charge-sheet included Sections 279 and 304-Part II. The trial court convicted the bus driver under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed, challenging both conviction and sentence, invoking the Probation of Offenders Act for leniency.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 304-A IPC was the primary provision, requiring proof of death by rash or negligent act.
- The court distinguished between Section 279 (“rash driving”) and Section 304-A (“causing death by negligence”), emphasizing that both require proof of culpable negligence.
- The Probation of Offenders Act’s applicability is generally barred in such offences, following Dalbir Singh and Thakur Singh, but can be provisionally reconsidered in light of Sanjoy Calaro when exception facts exist.
- The legal basis for modifying sentence to compensation rests on recent Supreme Court authority, not on a general statutory mandate.
Procedural Innovations
- Sentence modification: Instead of enforcing the original imprisonment, the court adopted the “compensation in lieu of sentence” approach, referencing recent Supreme Court practice.
- Outlined procedural steps for enforcement: compensation to be paid within a specified period, with mandated reporting to the trial court and sentence enforced in case of default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed: Binding Supreme Court precedent followed and clarified, with narrowly tailored exception.