Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 101 (SC)

Suresh Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2025-01-06

HRISHIKESH ROY, S.V.N.BHATTI

body2025
ORDER : Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The State of Rajasthan is represented by Mr. Smarhar Singh, Advocate. 3. Notice in this case was issued on 09.02.2024 with the following order:- “Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner was driving the jeep on a village road on a rainy day. The jeep driven by the petitioner collided with a tree injuring the traveling passengers. 2. The Court has considered the petitioner to be careless in his driving and convicted him under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and the maximum sentence imposed was one year. 3. The petitioner has been in custody for about 50 days and this 2 Court had exempted him from surrendering on 29.01.2024. 4. As the sentence imposed is only one year, the counsel argues that the probation for the petitioner should have been considered by the High Court. 5. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. 6. In the meantime, the interim order dated 29.01.2024 will continue.” 4. In the counter affidavit, the State has projected that the appellant was driving the vehicle negligently which led to the jeep hitting a tree leading to injuries to passengers and also to death of one such passenger. 5. The evidence in the case indicates that the vehicle was driven at the speed of 60-65 kmph. As the appellant lost control of the jeep, which has been driven on a village road, the vehicle hit a standing road side tree, which led to over-turning of the vehicle. 6. At the relevant time, the appellant was aged about 30 years and the accident in question has occurred 34 years earlier on 29.12.1990. It is averred in the application that the appellant has undergone about 50 days incarceration. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served by upholding the conviction of the appellant. But his sentence of one year is substituted to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. The fine amount if not remitted should be remitted within four weeks from today. 8. The appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid modification of the sentence. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.