Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Yadav vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 22 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 22nd August 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 410/2016
KAMLESH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate
versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G. M. Farooqui, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
%
P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition filed under Section 397/401 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks to challenge the order of conviction dated 30.07.2015
and order on sentence dated 05.11.2015 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, whereby the
petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of four months for the offence under Section 279 of IPC; four months
for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for one year for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The petitioner also
seeks to challenge the orders dated 25.01.2016 passed by learned
Special Judge-CBI (P.C. Act)-06, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.27/2015, whereby the learned Special
Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the
impugned orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the impugned judgment
are that a charge sheet was filed against the accused Kamlesh Yadav
for the offences punishable under Section 279/304-A of IPC. On
30.07.2009 at about 5.00 AM, near DVW Office, Rajpur Road, Delhi
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi the accused
was driving the Half Body Truck bearing No. DLL 8655 in a rash and
negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety
of others and while driving so in the said manner, struck against one
stationed vehicle and caused death of Shankar Sahu and injuries to
others and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section
279/304-A of IPC.
3. Trial commenced, evidences were led on behalf of both the
sides and after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted for
the offences with which he was charged. Aggrieved by the order of
conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
learned Special Judge, which was also dismissed vide impugned order.
Now the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments on
sentence passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate and submits that
the petitioner is not a previous convict and remained on bail during
trial of the case for about 17 years and was not found involved in any
criminal or anti-social activity. It is further stated that at present, the
petitioner is about 38 years of age and has four minor children and old
aged mother. He is the only earning member in the family. More so,
the petitioner has already deposited the total fine of Rs.9,500/- as
directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Mr. G. M. Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State contended that the impugned orders passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate as well as order passed in appeal by learned
Additional Session Judge are well reasoned orders and they do not call
for any interference therefore the present revision petition is liable to
be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the impugned judgments and orders and the nominal roll of
the petitioner.
7. After considering the submissions advanced by both the sides
and upon perusal of the impugned order, evidence on record and the
decisions cited, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned conviction of petitioner-accused. However, on the quantum
of sentence, this Court observes that the petitioner has family to
support, he is not a previous convict in any other case and in the
considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has already faced
agony of these proceedings for last about 17 years. Nominal roll of the
petitioner is also perused by this Court, according to which the
petitioner has already remained behind the bars in this case for about 7
months.
8. This Court further observes that the petitioner is sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 279/337/304A of IPC, which
does not prescribe any minimum sentence. Therefore, after
considering the facts that the petitioner is not a previous convict, has
family to support and has already undergone the agony of these
proceedings for the last about 17 years, this Court is of the opinion
that ends of justice would be met if petitioner's substantive sentence is
reduced from one year to eight months.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition
is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence to the extent indicated
above.
10. Trial Court be apprised of this order forthwith by sending copy
of this order.
11. Copy of this order be also sent to the Jail Superintendent for
information.
12. This revision petition as well as application are disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
P.S.TEJI, J
AUGUST 22, 2016
pkb
