The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill while reducing the sentence of an accused in a rash & negligent driving case observd, “Taking into consideration the agony of trial faced by the petitioner for the period of 9½ years and further in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra), in my opinion, the ends of justice would be suitably met, if the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.” (Shri Ram v. State of Punjab)
Facts of the case
The petitioner was tried in case registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and order found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which had been dismissed vide impugned judgment. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
Courts Observation & Judgment
While making submissions qua the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a first offender; that he has no shady past; that he has been facing the agony of the trial since 2013; that he is the only bread winning member of his family, and that his conduct during the trial has been quite fair and bona fide and he has never obstructed the course of trial and the appeal. The petitioner has already undergone the actual sentence of 06 months and 12 days as 19.08.2022. He has also earned remissions of 25 days. Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the offence committed by him. The petitioner does not deserve any leniency.
Courts observation and order
The bench at the very outset having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a lucid examination of the record observed that both the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. There is no manifest error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. Thus, in my opinion, in view of the evidence on record, there is no scope for any interference in the findings of the Courts below, so far as the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is upheld. However, the fact remains that the present FIR was registered on 29.03.2013 and out of the substantive sentence of 01 year, the petitioner has undergone the actual sentence of 06 months and 12 days as on 19.08.2022. He has also earned remissions of 25 days.
The bench further took note of the Supreme Court’s case in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 495, while setting aside the order of the High Court, thereby reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused i.e. 1 year to the period already undergone by him i.e. 24 days, awarded the sentence of six months to the accused-respondent therein.
The bench disposing of the application remarked, “Taking into consideration the agony of trial faced by the petitioner for the period of 9½ years and further in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra), in my opinion, the ends of justice would be suitably met, if the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him.
Apart from that, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- to the LRs of each deceased) as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased-Kuldeep Singh and Sucha Singh, within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that in case, the compensation amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the present revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Disposed of.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
