New Delhi, July 13: The Supreme Court has waived the jail term of a tanker driver who killed a man riding a scooter on a request from the victim’s mother.

It has instead directed the driver, Manish Jalan, to pay Rs 1 lakh to H. Sunanda Prabhu in compensation within three months.

The court, while maintaining Jalan’s conviction for rash driving, said a lenient view needed to be taken in view of the mother’s decision to forgive the culprit.

“… bearing in mind the fact that the victim’s mother has no grievance against the appellant and has prayed for some compensation, we are of the view that a lenient view can be taken… and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced,” the court said, reducing Jalan’s term to the period of sentence already undergone.

The trial court had sentenced him to a year and fined him Rs 5,000 for driving rashly. It also sentenced him to the same period under another section for causing death by rash or negligent act, not amounting to culpable homicide.

On appeal, Karnataka High Court maintained the conviction, kept the one-year sentence and the fine of Rs 5,000 for rash driving but reduced the one-year term for causing death by negligent act to six months. The apex court has waived the rest of his jail term.

The apex court had noted that though the driver had hit his victim and run him over after he fell off his Kinetic Honda, there were no allegations that he was drunk or under the influence of any other substance impairing his driving skills.

“It was a rash and negligent act and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which (would have been), undoubtedly despicable, aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment,” the court said.

It took into account the mother’s statement that she had no grievance against Jalan as she believed that “it was an act of God and it was their destiny that their son left them at an early age”. She said “the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Jalan) may be set aside.”

The court refused to set aside Jalan’s conviction on the ground that there was no provision for compounding such offences but waived the rest of his sentence.

“Though a comprehensive provision enabling courts to direct payment of compensation has been in existence all through, experience has shown that the provision has rarely attracted the attention of the courts. Time and again, courts have been reminded that the provision is aimed at serving a social purpose and should be exercised liberally yet the results are not very heartening,” the apex court said in a message to lower courts.

However, it asked courts to ensure that the case was a fitting one, deserving compensation. “If the court is convinced that compensation should be paid, then the quantum is to be determined taking into consideration the nature of the crime, the injury suffered and the capacity of the convict to pay compensation etc.”