Convicted for a 2007 accident, he walked free after 117 days in 2024.

The 69-year-old driver who spent 117 days in jail for a 2007 accident

George was driving a mini Lorry on the evening of 7 August 2007 near Alappuzha, Kerala. He allegedly drove rashly and negligently, hitting a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. The pillion rider, Santhosh Kumar, fell off, suffered grievous injuries, and died. The Lorry also hit a pedestrian. George was tried and convicted by the Magistrate's Court, which sentenced him to concurrent terms totalling one year. His appeal to the Sessions Court failed, as did his revision before the Kerala High Court. He then approached the Supreme Court. By the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, George—now about 69 years old and in poor health—had already spent about 117 days in custody. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction but reduced the sentence to time already served and cut the compensation from Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000, ordering his immediate release.

What the post-mortem actually said

The Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha, convicted George on 17 March 2015 under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) IPC. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms: 3 months simple imprisonment each under Sections 279 and 337, and 1 year simple imprisonment each under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC, plus fines. The court also acquitted him under Section 162 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

George appealed. The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Alappuzha, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2015, upholding the conviction and sentence. He then moved the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in revision. On 13 June 2024, the High Court dismissed CRRP No. 606/2024 but reduced the sentence to 6 months simple imprisonment and directed George to pay compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

By then, George was 69 years old, in poor health, and had spent about 117 days in custody. He had been on bail throughout the proceedings—16 years of them.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter. The core issue was whether the conviction could be sustained given the evidence. The Court examined the testimony of the eyewitnesses. One witness, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had described George as an "elderly person." At the time of the accident in 2007, George was approximately 52 years old.

The defence argued that this discrepancy between the police statement and the court testimony was a contradiction under Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. The Court rejected this. It held that describing a 52-year-old as "elderly" is not a significant discrepancy. The Explanation to Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. requires a contradiction to be material. Calling a 52-year-old "elderly" is a matter of perception, not a contradiction that goes to the root of the case.

The Court also noted that the prosecution had proved the rash and negligent driving through the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the post-mortem report. The conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) IPC was upheld.

Why the High Court got the sentence wrong

The High Court had reduced the sentence to 6 months simple imprisonment but directed George to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs as compensation. The Supreme Court found this problematic on two counts.

First, the sentence. The Court noted that for conviction under Section 304(A) and Section 338 IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed. The term may extend to 2 years, but the sentence can also be limited to fine without any term of imprisonment. For Sections 279 and 337 IPC, the maximum punishment is 6 months, and punishment can also be fine only. The Court observed that the accident had occurred 17 years ago. George was now 69 years old, in poor health, and had already spent 117 days in custody. The Court relied on Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police (2021) 17 SCC 799, where a three-judge bench had substituted imprisonment sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC to fine only, considering the accident had occurred 26 years prior and the accused had been on bail throughout.

Second, the compensation. The High Court had directed George to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs. The Supreme Court noted that George was a poor person, elderly, and suffering from medical issues. The Court reduced the compensation to Rs.50,000, to be deposited within 60 days of his release before the trial court.

THE PLAY: In road accident cases under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) IPC, where substantial time has elapsed and the accused is elderly and in poor health, the court may modify the sentence to the period already undergone while upholding the conviction, and reduce compensation based on the convict's financial and health circumstances.

What this means for practitioners

This judgment is a reminder that sentencing in road accident cases is not a one-size-fits-all exercise. The Supreme Court has reinforced the wide sentencing discretion available to courts under these provisions. For advocates defending elderly or infirm clients in old accident cases, the argument is clear: the passage of time, the health of the accused, and the period already undergone are all relevant factors. The Court has also made it clear that compensation can be reduced where the convict is shown to be poor and suffering from medical issues.

For prosecutors, the takeaway is equally important. The Court has upheld the conviction despite the passage of 17 years. The evidence of rash and negligent driving, if proved through eyewitness testimony and medical reports, will sustain a conviction even after a long delay.

For founders and CFOs, this judgment is a cautionary tale about the risks of driving company vehicles. A single moment of negligence can lead to a criminal conviction that follows you for 17 years. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, even while reducing the sentence, means that the stigma of a criminal record remains.

The bottom line

George walked out of the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram, on 3 September 2024, after spending 117 days in custody for a 2007 accident. His conviction stands. His sentence is done. The compensation is reduced. The lesson: in road accident cases, the conviction may be inevitable, but the sentence is negotiable—especially when the accused is old, poor, and has already spent time in jail.