Delhi High Court
Lakhpat Singh vs State on 10 March, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P.224/2010
Decided on 10.03.2011
IN THE MATTER OF
LAKHPAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. M N Dudeja, APP for State with SI
Kamal Kohli PS Moti Nagar
Mr.Gagan Chawla, Advocate for legal heirs of
deceased Smt. Shriya Devi and S. Mukand Singh
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated
15.4.2010 passed by the learned ASJ dismissing the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, Crl.A.34/2006, arising out of the judgment dated 6.10.2005
passed by the learned MM convicting the appellant under Section 279, 337
and 304-A IPC and the order on sentence dated 14.10.2005. The petitioner
was awarded a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months
under Section 279 IPC. He was further awarded simple imprisonment for a
period of 6 months under Section 337 IPC and under Section 304-A IPC
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. Additionally, the
petitioner was directed to pay `10,000/- as compensation to each set of the
legal heirs of the two deceased victims of the accident. The sentences
imposed were directed to run consecutively.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
does not wish to challenge the impugned order dated 15.4.2010 on merits
and states that it is a fit case where this court may consider giving the
petitioner the benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
He submits that the accident in question took place on 16.12.1990,
therefore, the petitioner has been undergoing the ordeal of trial for the past
21 years and has already undergone conviction for a period of 11 months. It
is further stated that when released on bail, the petitioner continued to serve
in the Delhi Transport Corporation as a driver and he was awarded a
certificate of excellence by his employer for the month of November-
December, 2004. The status report called for, from DTC in reference to the
petitioner dated 18.10.2010 shows that there is no pending case against him
and that disciplinary action has already been taken against him for the
accident, which is subject matter of the present appeal, by stopping his next
two increments due with cumulative effect.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
already undergone conviction for a period of 11 months and has an
unblemished background after the accident, with no untoward incident or
complaint against him and further, he has proved himself to be a useful
citizen by raising his children in a proper manner, hence he is entitled to the
benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act. He further submits
that the petitioner has paid a sum of `10,000/- as compensation to Sh.
Pradeep Singh, the legal heir of Mukund Singh, one of the victims and a sum
of `10,000/- is handed over to Sh.Bimal Kumar Sancheti, legal heir of
Lt.Shriya Devi, the other victim. He also volunteers to pay an additional
sum of `60,000/- to be divided in equal half between the two sets of the
legal heirs of the two victims of the accident.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 9.12.2010, whereby the learned APP
was requested to verify the whereabouts of the legal heirs of the victims, the
wife and son of Late Mukund Singh are present in court today. Similarly, Mr.
Pradeep Kumar Sancheti, son of Late Shriya Devi is also present in Court
today. He is authorized to appear on behalf of the remaining six legal heirs.
The legal heirs of both the victims, who are duly represented through
counsel, have submitted the affidavits of all the legal heirs of, both Late
Mukund Singh and Late Shriya Devi. Learned counsel states that he has
filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the legal heirs.
5. Learned APP submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and in view of the offer made by the petitioner to further
compensate the legal heirs of the deceased victims, over and above the
compensation directed to be paid to them under the order on sentence, he
would not be averse to extending the benefit of probation to the petitioner
under the Probation of Offenders Act.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after a
careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of a trial
extending over 21 years. Apart from that, he has undergone conviction for
a period of 11 months, which is almost half of the maximum sentence
awarded to him and now there is no other case pending against him. While
on bail, he has served his employer satisfactorily and has been awarded a
certificate of merit by the DTC. He has two sons and one daughter who is of
marriageable age. Both the sons have been given a proper education by
the petitioner and have been raised to become useful citizens of the country.
While one of the sons is employed as a driver with a private company, the
second son is completing his graduation. Furthermore, the petitioner has
volunteered to pay additional compensation of `60,000/- to the legal heirs of
both the victims.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the benefit of
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is granted
to the petitioner, while maintaining the order on conviction. The petitioner is
granted probation, upon his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of
`20,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial
court, for maintaining good conduct till he completes his remaining service
with his employer, DTC, which is stated to be for a period of approximately 2
years. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over `30,000/- to each set of
the legal heirs of both the deceased victims, along with the `10,000/-, which
remained payable to the legal heirs of Late Shriya Devi through their
common counsel. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released only
after orders are passed by the trial court accepting the bonds of probation
and surety.
8. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2011
vld
