Mumbai: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has granted probation to a 28-year-old man for causing the death of a woman in 2013 after he rammed his bike into her, observing that the accused had a “bright future”. The court noted that the accused was only 18 years old at the time and had no intention to cause the accident.
The court said while Akshay Khandve’s conviction was just and legal, the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to him considering his age and other factors.
“He (Khandve) has a bright future. He is apprehensive about the stigma of conviction that may ruin his future,” Justice SG Mehare said. The court added, “He was a teenager, and in excitement and happiness, he might have driven the new vehicle for the first time and lost control. His age and the way in which the accident happened are the peculiar facts that have to be considered.”
“He (Khandve) was a first-time offender and has no antecedents,” the court added. The court said it was expedient to release Khandve on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (releasing on probation for good conduct). The judge upheld Khandve’s conviction but instead of sentencing him ordered for him to be released on probation.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Khandve challenging the 2019 judgments of the magistrate court and the sessions court convicting him for allegedly causing the death of a woman by negligence. He claimed he had just turned 18 at the time of the incident on April 20, 2013 when he allegedly drove his new bike rashly and negligently and rammed into a woman sitting outside her house. The woman died on May 7, 2013.
He was booked under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence) and under relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act considering his age at the time of the incident.
Noting that two courts had held that Khandve was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, Justice Mehare said that his conviction was not “perverse, illegal or improper” and that it was proportionate and just. However, the judge said that the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to him.
