Questions over two-year term

The Supreme Court verdict convicting accused Sanjeev Nanda for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ for the January 1999 accident that claimed six lives is understandable, given the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court verdict convicting accused Sanjeev Nanda for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ for the January 1999 accident that claimed six lives is understandable, given the facts of the case.

HT Image

The verdict by a bench of justice Deepak Verma and justice KS Radhakrishnan reverses the Delhi High Court's July 2009 decision, convicting him of ‘causing death by negligence’. To this extent, the Supreme Court has restored the trial court's verdict, which had found Nanda guilty of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.

What has surprised many is the quantum of sentence awarded to Nanda. While the trial court gave him five-year jail term holding him guilty of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' (Section 304 part-II of the IPC), the HC reversed the verdict by convicting him of 'causing death by negligence' (Section 304A of IPC) and reduced the sentence to two years.

Section 304A, being a lesser offence, prescribes a maximum punishment of a two-year jail term. On the other hand, part-II of Section 304 — a graver offence — attracts a maximum punishment of 10 years.

Going by the rationale behind the punishment prescribed by the IPC, if Nanda has been found guilty of a graver offence, then the punishment should also have been harsher.

Why has the SC not enhanced his punishment despite terming his conduct "highly reprehensible" remains unclear, as the full verdict is not public yet.

The order to pay R50 lakh to the Centre towards compensating victims of road accidents in which erring drivers are untraceable is hardly comparable to a longer jail term, especially for a millionaire. Nanda has already paid R65 lakh to the victims' families.

In January this year, the SC had cancelled Alistair Anthony Pereira's bail and ordered him to serve a three-year jail term as ordered by the Bombay High Court. He was found guilty of mowing down seven people in Mumbai while he was drunk.

"It is high time that law makers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in Section 304 A of the IPC (death due to negligence). It is true that the appellant has paid compensation of R8,50,000 but no amount of compensation could relieve the family of victims from the constant agony," the SC had said.

The apex court had also said that it considered a three-year sentence meagre, but could not increase it because the state of Maharashtra didn't appeal for a tougher sentence.

In Nanda's case, the Delhi Police had.