Is Jail Mandatory Under Section 304A IPC? Supreme Court Says No, Allows ₹3 Lakh Compensation In Accident Case

The Supreme Court has said that Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which corresponds to Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and deals with causing death by a rash or negligent act, does not make it mandatory to impose a jail sentence in every case.

In a case arising out of the death of a 13-year-old boy in a road accident, Court allowed the accused to avoid serving his three-month jail term on the condition that he pays Rs 3 lakh as compensation to the boy’s family.

The Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Prasanna B Varale was hearing a review petition filed by Abdul Sattar.

Earlier, on March 11, 2024, the Supreme Court had dismissed Sattar's special leave petition challenging the Karnataka High Court’s October 5, 2023 judgment. The high court had upheld his conviction under Sections 279 (Section 281, BNS), 337 (Section 125(a), BNS), 338 (Section 125(b), BNS), and 304(A) of the IPC. It had reduced his sentence under Section 304(A) from six months to three months but increased the fine from Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000.

When the matter came up in review, the petitioner offered to pay compensation to the family of the deceased. Court issued notice on this limited submission. It then allowed the review petition and restored the special leave petition to its original number for hearing.

After hearing the parties, the Bench noted that the 13-year-old boy had died due to the appellant’s negligence. However, it observed that Section 304(A) does not compulsorily require a jail sentence. Court said that instead of serving the remaining sentence, the appellant could pay a total fine of Rs 3 lakh. This amount would be treated as compensation and given to the boy’s family.

Court also interacted virtually with the boy’s parents, who were present at the Devaraja Traffic Police Station in Mysore City along with the Assistant Commissioner of Police and a translator. The Bench recorded that the parents were in a difficult situation and were willing to accept compensation for their survival.

Taking into account all circumstances and exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, Court ordered that the three-month sentence awarded by the high court would stand commuted, subject to payment of Rs 3 lakh in two instalments.

Court directed that Rs 2 lakh be deposited in the account of the boy’s parents within one month. The remaining Rs 1 lakh must be paid on or before April 6, 2026. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount, he will have to undergo the three-month jail sentence as ordered by the high court.

Case Title: Abdul Sattar Vs The State of Karnataka of Home & Anr

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Prasanna B Varale

Date of Judgment: February 5, 2026