ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 12-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 145 
ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1318-1320 of 2007) 
JANUARY 12, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND JAGADISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss.304 (Part-I/) and 338 - Causing of death and grievous c 
hurt by rash and negligent driving - Permissibility of trial and 
conviction of a person for both offences for a single act of the 
same transaction - Held: Indictment of an accused u/ss 304 
(Part II) and 338 can co-exist in a case of single rash or 
negligent act where such an act is done with the knowledge 
0 
of likelihood of its dangerous consequences - It cannot be said 
that two charges are mutually destructive - If the act is done 
with the knowledge of the dangerous consequences which are 
likely to follow and if death is caused, then not only that the 
punishmc nt is for the act but also for the resulting homicide 
E 
and a case may fall within s. 299 or s. 300 depending upon 
the mental state of the accused viz., as to whether the act was 
done with one kind of knowledge or the other or the.intention 
-There is no impediment in law for an offender being charged 
with the offence punishable uls 304 (Part II) and also u/ss 337 
F 
and 338 /PC - A person, doing an act of rash or negligent 
driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is 
likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not 
only of the act but also of the result. 
s.~04 (Part-II) r/w s.299 (last clause) - Seven labourers, 
G 
while asleep killed and 8 others suffered grievous injuries by 
rash and negligent driving - Nature of the offence - Held: Rash 
or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the 
dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and 
145 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable 
homicide not amounting to murder - A person, responsible 
for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which 
he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was 
dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the 
B death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the 
knowledge of the consequence, and may be fastened with 
culpability of homicide not amounting to murder punishable 
uls 304 (Part II) - Jn the instant case, the essential ingredients 
of s. 304 (Part II) have been successfully established by the 
c prosecution against the accused - The view of the High Court 
being consistent with the evidence on record and law, upheld 
- Judicial notice. 
ss.304 (Part-II), 337 and 338 - Death of seven labourers 
while asleep and grievous injuries to B others caused by rash 
D and negligent driving - Sentence - Held: The facts and 
circumstances of the case which have been proved by the 
prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the 
offence punishable u/s 304(Part II) undoubtedly show 
despicable aggravated offence warranting punishment 
E proportionate to the crime - Seven precious human lives were 
Jost by the act of the accused - For an offence like this which 
has been proved against the accused, sentence of three years 
awarded by the High Court is too meagre and not adequate, 
but since no appeal has been preferred by the State, the Court 
F refrains from considering the matter for enhancement. 
SENTENCE/SENTENCING 
Sentence uls 304-A /PC - Held: The principle of 
proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched 
G in criminal jurisprudence - As a matter of law, proportion 
between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence 
in determination of sentencing the crime doer - Court has to 
take into consideration all aspects including social interest 
and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate 
H sentence - In view of the large number of accidental deaths 
ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA v. STATE OF 
147 
MAHARASHTRA 
due to speeding and drunk driving , it is high time that law A 
makers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in s. 304 A /PC. 
Framing of charge - Accused charged with the offences 
punishable ulss.304 (Part-II) and s.338 /PC for causing death 
of 7 labourers and injuries to 8 others by rash and negligent 8 
driving - Words 'drunken condition' not stated in the charge -
Charge neither framed with the offence punishable u/s 185, 
Motor Vehicles Act nor u/s 66 (1) (b) of Bombay Prohibition 
Act - Held: Omission of the words 'in drunken condition' in the 
charge is not very material and, in any case, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.