Mohd. Islam vs The State
2014 Latest Caselaw 326 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Judgment:17.01.2014.
+      CRL.REV.P. 685/2013 & Crl. M.(B) No.2402/2013
       MOHD. ISLAM
                                                     ..... Petitioner
                       Through     Mr. Haneef Mohammad, Adv.

                            versus

       THE STATE
                                                       ..... Respondent
                            Through    Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 This revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment

dated 19.11.2013 wherein while dismissing the appeal filed by the

petitioner against the judgment dated 29.09.2011, the sentence had been

modified. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under

Sections 279/304-A of the IPC had sentenced the petitioner to undergo

SI for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default

of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 2 months. This was for the offence

under Section 304-A of the IPC. For the offence under Section 279 of

the IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months; the

Sessions Judge had modified the sentence and had reduced the SI for 9

months to SI for a period of 3 months for the offence under Section 304-

A of the IPC; the sentence under Section 279 of the IPC as also the

imposition of fine has remained unaltered.

2 Relevant would it be to note that before the Sessions Judge it has

been noted that while addressing arguments on the appeal, the counsel

for the appellant had categorically stated that he did not wish to

challenge the conviction on merits but had also prayed for modification

of the sentence. Accordingly, the merits of the case had not been taken

up before the Sessions Judge. Before this Court, learned counsel for the

petitioner has sought to address arguments in detail on the merits of the

case. It has been brought to his notice that he had given up his right

before the Sessions Court and before this Court which is sitting in

revisional jurisdiction, this matter cannot be taken on merits. He can

only be heard on sentence.

3 Accordingly, arguments had been addressed on the sentence. It is

stated that the convict is a first time offender; he is aged 55 years; he is

the sole bread earner of the family; he was earning his livelihood by

driving the TSR; out of the sentence of 3 months which has been

imposed upon him he has already undergone imprisonment for 1 month

27 days. This is reflected from his nominal roll dated 15.01.2014. His

conduct in the jail also being satisfactory, he should be entitled to a

further concession and sentence to the period already undergone by him.

4 This submission has been refuted by the learned public prosecutor

who submits that admittedly one innocent life had been lost; the

sentence of 3 months is more than lenient which has been imposed upon

the petitioner calls for no interference.

5 The victim who had lost his life in this incident was also probably

a bread earner in his family. He was aged 25 years. He was on the brink

of his life. The sentence imposed must always commensurate with the

gravity of the offence. This is the fundamental rule of criminal

jurisprudence.

6 For the offence under Section 304-A the Legislature has

prescribed a sentence which may extend up to 2 years. The petitioner is

guilty of the offence under Section 304-A. The sentence imposed by the

Sessions Judge already being very lenient; no further modification is

called for in the said sentence.

7      Revision petition is dismissed.



                                          INDERMEET KAUR, J

JANUARY 17, 2014
A