Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash vs State on 19 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV. P. No. 518/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 19th December, 2011
JAI PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the
State with SI Mukesh Kumar, PS Keshav
Puram
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial
Court vide judgment dated 05.04.2011 held the petitioner guilty for the
offence under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and vide
order on sentence dated 08.04.2011 petitioner was sentenced to SI for a
period of 15 months and fine of ` 3,000/- in default of payment of
fine, further SI for one month, for the offence under Section 304A
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and SI for a period of 03 months under
Section 279 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences to run
concurrently and fine already stood paid.
2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the above conviction
and sentence before the Sessions Court. Vide judgment dated
03.08.2011, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissed the
appeal of petitioner and modified the sentence to the extent of
sentencing the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months under
Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and rigorous imprisonment for
03 months under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions submits that
he is not disputing the findings and conviction by the Trial Court as
well as Appellate Court, however on the point of sentence he prayed
for some leniency.
4. He further submitted that petitioner is having eldest daughter
aged about 22 years who is mentally retarded and hearing impaired.
Petitioner is also having two sons; one is about 18 years and another
one is minor of 04½ years. The entire family is dependent upon
petitioner who is the sole bread earner.
5. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State, on the other hand,
submits that PW-8 Shri Praveen Kumar, who was the eye-witness has
proved the case against the petitioner. The petitioner, after crushing
the victim under the wheel of bus, which was being driven by him, did
not stop the bus despite the people asked him to do so, rather fled away
from the spot of accident, after abandoning the bus at some distance.
6. She further submitted that petitioner has just completed a period
of 3½ months in custody against the total sentence of 01 year.
Therefore, in the circumstances, at least he should at least complete
half of the sentence only, thereafter, the plea of the petitioner can be
considered.
7. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of
the case, I modify the order on sentence dated 08.04.2011 of the ld.
Trial Court and the judgment dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Appellate
Court to the extent already undergone.
8. The Jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
9. CRL.REV.P. 518/2011 is allowed partly.
10. Consequently, Crl M.B. No. 2020/2011 also stands disposed of.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 19, 2011
RS
