Settlement With Victim's Family Can't Erase Conviction For Causing Death By Rash & Negligent Driving: Kerala High Court

Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a criminal revision petition challenging a judgment which convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of IPC.

The case arose from an accident on August 15, 2004, on the Kollam–Alappuzha National Highway, where the accused's motorcycle allegedly collided with another motorcycle ridden by the complainant's husband. The victim sustained fatal injuries and later died. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and one year's simple imprisonment under Section 304A IPC, along with suspension of his driving licence for six months. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The revision petitioner argued that the lower courts had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and sought leniency on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and that the victim's legal heirs had already received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court examined the evidence and noted that the testimony of two eyewitnesses consistently established that the accused was riding at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court were well supported by the evidence and did not warrant interference.

The Court took note of an affidavit filed by the deceased's wife stating that the family had received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that she no longer had any grievance against the accused.

However, the Court observed that an offence under Section 304A IPC is non-compoundable and cannot be treated as a purely private dispute because offences involving rash and negligent driving resulting in loss of life have a broader societal impact. Accordingly, the settlement could not erase the conviction, though it could be considered while determining the appropriate sentence.

“The offence cannot be treated as a purely private dispute, since offences involving rash and negligent driving resulting in the loss of human life have a clear societal dimension. Therefore, the settlement arrived at between the parties cannot constitute a ground for setting aside the conviction recorded against the accused.” Court observed.

The Court thus allowed the revision petition in part and modified the sentence by directing the accused to pay a fine of ₹500 for the offence under Section 279 IPC. For the offence under Section 304A IPC, the Court sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed payment of ₹10,000 as compensation to the deceased's wife under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a default sentence of six months' simple imprisonment in case of non-payment.

The accused was directed to appear before the trial court on September 2, 2026, to receive the modified sentence.

Case Title: Suresh Kumar v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 1821/ 2009

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 364

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: G. Priyadarsan Thampu, Syam J Sam

Counsel for Respondent: Jose Antony, Tanya Joy (PP)