Conviction under s. 304-A IPC was upheld, but the Supreme Court extended the benefit of s. 3 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, releasing the appellant after admonition and commuting the sentence into compensation payable to the deceased’s family.

on

Facts

The appellant, a driver employed with BMTC, was driving a bus on 27.12.2011 when it hit one Rangamma, who was crossing the road. She sustained fatal injuries and later died in hospital. The appellant did not inform the police about the accident. An FIR was lodged and, after investigation, he was prosecuted under ss. 279, 304-A IPC and s. 134(b) read with s. 187 MVA.

The Trial Court convicted him on all counts, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In revision, the High Court set aside the conviction under s. 279 IPC but maintained the conviction under s. 304-A IPC and the sentence imposed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant sought benefit under s. 3 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. During pendency of the appeal, this Court directed deposit of ₹5,00,000/-, which was complied with.

Issues Framed
Whether the appellant convicted under s. 304-A IPC and s. 134(b) read with s. 187 MVA was entitled to the benefit of s. 3 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court noted that s. 3 of the 1958 Act empowers the Court to release an offender after admonition where the offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years. The Court observed that the punishment prescribed for s. 304-A IPC and s. 134(b) read with s. 187 MVA does not exceed two years. Hence, “the Appellant satisfies the pre-requisites of Section 3 of 1958 Act.” (Para 7).

(b) The Court further considered the statement made on behalf of the State that it had no objection to grant of probation provided the deposited amount was released to the deceased’s family as compensation.

(c) Exercising powers under s. 3 Probation of Offenders Act, the Court confirmed the conviction but directed that “instead of sentencing, the Appellant be released after due admonition.” (Para 8). The Court also invoked s. 12 of the 1958 Act, holding that the benefit granted would ensure that the conviction would not operate as a disqualification affecting the appellant’s service career.

(d) The sentence of six months’ imprisonment and fines imposed by the courts below was commuted into payment of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation to the deceased’s family. The Registry was directed to release the deposited amount with accrued interest to the legal heirs. (Paras 9–10).

Held
The appeal was disposed of by maintaining the conviction under s. 304-A IPC and s. 134(b) read with s. 187 MVA, while extending the benefit of s. 3 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The custodial sentence was substituted with compensation of ₹5,00,000/- payable to the deceased’s family.

Ratio
An offender convicted under s. 304-A IPC and allied provisions of the MVA, where the maximum punishment does not exceed two years, may be granted the benefit of S.3 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, with the Court substituting imprisonment by admonition and compensation where circumstances justify such relief.


Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 504
Decided on: 18 May 2026
Case Title: Mahadevanna D.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar