2021 INSC 0730
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).    1415  OF 2021
        (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 931 of 2021)
SAGAR LOLIENKAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GOA & ANR.              ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard   Mr.   Pallav   Mongia,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant
and Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 7 th
December,   2020   upholding   his   conviction   for   offences   under
Sections 279, 304­A of Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section
3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act)
and sentencing him with simple imprisonment of two months and
1

fine of Rs. 1,000/­ for  the  offence  under  Section 279 IPC; simple
imprisonment   for   two   years   and   fine   of   Rs.   10,000/­   for   the
offence under  Section  304­A IPC; and to  pay  fine of Rs. 500/­ or
in   default   to   undergo   simple   imprisonment   of   10   days   for   the
offence under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the MV Act.
Indisputedly, the appellant has undergone more than 7 months of
substantive sentence.
4. The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   the   appellant   on   13 th
February, 2013 at 1745 hrs while proceeding from Tilamol side to
Zambaulim,   which   is   a   public   way,   drove   his   Wagon­R   bearing
registration no. GA­09­A­6921 in a rash and negligent manner and
committed   a   culpable   homicide   not   amounting   to   murder,   by
causing   the   death   of   Manohar   Shetkar.     It   was   also   the   case   of
prosecution   that   the   accused   was   driving   the   offending   vehicle
rashly   and   negligently   without   holding   an   effective   driving   licence
issued   by   the   competent   authority   and,   therefore,   committed   an
offence   under   Sections   279,   304(II)   IPC   and   Sections   3,   181   and
185 of the MV Act.
5. The   prosecution   in   all   examined   seven   witnesses   including
the investigating officer.  Thereafter, the statement of the appellant
was   recorded   under   Section   313   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.
2

Despite the opportunity, the accused neither examined himself nor
led any evidence in support of his defence.
6. The learned trial Judge, by its judgment and order dated 30 th
September, 2014 held him guilty and convicted and sentenced him
for the afore­stated offences.  The appeal preferred by the appellant
came   to   be   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   of   Bombay   at   Goa   by
judgment impugned dated 7 th
 December, 2020.
7. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   tried   to   persuade   this
Court   that   the   evidence   on   record   does   not   justify   any   conviction
or  sentencing  and  further  submits that the ocular  evidence is not
at   all   reliable   and   the   documentary   evidence   to   a   great   extent
supports the defence raised by the appellant.
8. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   there   is   some
unreliable   evidence   suggesting   that   the   offending   vehicle   was
driven at “high speed” but such evidence is not at all sufficient to
establish   either   rashness   or   negligence,   which   are   essential
ingredients   to   have   a   conviction   under   Sections   279   or   304­A   of
IPC   and   based   on   such   vague   testimony,   the   conviction   as
recorded is quite unsustainable.
3

9. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   as   a   matter   of   record,
the   appellant   was   holding   a   learner’s   licence   to   drive   the   motor
vehicle   on   the   alleged   date   of   incident   dated   13 th
  February,   2013
and   was   accompanied   by   his   wife(PW   5)   who   was   sitting   beside
him and was the holder of a permanent licence to drive the motor
vehicle   and   submits   that   the   evidence   was,   therefore,   required   to
be   accepted   in   its   totality.     Learned   counsel   submits   that   wife   of
the   appellant   has   deposed   that   the   scooter   was   overtaking   a
parked truck and collided head­on with the Wagon­R driven by the
appellant   but   such   evidence   was   unduly   rejected   by   the   learned
Sessions Court and further submits that the appellant only has to
probabalise his defence and there is no requirement of establishing
such   defence   beyond   a   reasonable   doubt.     In   the   given
circumstances, the conviction which has been upheld by the High
Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   is   not   sustainable   and   deserves
to be interfered by this Court.
10. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­State   has
supported   the   order   of   conviction   passed   by   the   High   Court.
However,   the   learned   counsel   did   not   seriously   dispute   the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant relating to the
reduction of sentence.
4

11. Under   the   directions   of   this   Court,   by   an   Order   dated   5 th
April,   2021,   the   widow   of   the   deceased   was   impleaded   as
respondent no. 2 to whom notice has been duly served but no one
has   put   in   appearance   despite   service.     Further,   in   compliance   of
Order  of this Court, the compensation amount  of Rs. 3 lakhs has
been deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court.
12. After   going   through   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High   Court   as   well   as   the   Courts   below,   we   are   of   the   considered
opinion   that   the   well­reasoned   order   of   conviction   passed   by   the
High   Court   for   the   offences   under   Sections   279   and   304­A   IPC
needs no interference of this Court.
13.   However,   it   has   come   on   record   that   the   appellant   has   been
appointed   as   a   Peon   on   temporary   basis   in   the   Directorate   of
Women   &   Child   Development,   Goa   under   the   “Scheme   for
providing   employment   in   Government   to   the   Children   of   Freedom
Fighters”   by   an   Order   dated   4 th
  May,   2017   and   has   been   blessed
with the girl child on 19 th
 February, 2018.
14. In the instant case, the appellant has been found to be guilty
of   offences   punishable   under   Sections   279   and   304A   IPC   for
driving   rashly   and   negligently   on   a   public   street   and   his   act
5

unfortunately resulted in the loss of the precious human life.   But
it   is   pertinent   to   note   that   there   was   no   allegation   against   the
appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence
of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills.  It was
a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an
inebriated   condition   which   is,   undoubtedly   despicable   aggravated
offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment.
15. Having   regard   to   all   these   factors   and   bearing   in   mind   the
fact   that   the   widow   of   the   victim   has   not   come   forward   despite
notice being served and the compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs has been
deposited   by   the   appellant,   we   are   of   the   view   that   a   lenient   view
can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can
be reduced.  
16. Accordingly,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   under   Sections
279   and   304A   IPC   is   maintained.     However,   the   substantive
sentence   of   imprisonment   is   reduced   to   the   period   already
undergone.     Imposition   of   fine   is   also   affirmed.     Besides   the   fine,
an   amount   of   Rs.   3   lakhs   which   has   been   deposited   by   the
appellant by way of compensation in the Registry of this Court be
transferred   to   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   South   Goa,
Margao  in  Claim  Petition  No.  84/2013 which  shall  be  released  by
6

the  Tribunal  to  the widow  of  the deceased Smt. Reshma Manohar
Shetkar.
17. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.   The bail bonds of the
appellant, if any, stand discharged.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
 
7