Ajay Shah vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 916 Del

$~25
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              Date of hearing and Order: 5th February 2016

+      CRL.REV.P. 777/2015
       AJAY SHAH
                                                             ..... Petitioner
                           Through:   Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate


                           versus

       STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
                                                             ..... Respondent
                           Through:   Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional
                                      Public Prosecutor for the State with
                                      Sub-Inspector Roshan Lal, Police
                                      Station Nangloi, Delhi

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
                         ORDER

       %                 05.02.2016

       P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)

1. By this petition filed under Section 397/401 of Cr. P.C. read

with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. , the petitioner seeks to challenge the

order of conviction dated 22.08.2014 and order on sentence dated

27.10.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari,

Delhi, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one and half years. The petitioner also

seeks to challenge the orders dated 14.10.2015 and 19.10.2015 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge -04(West) Tis Hazari, Delhi,

passed in Criminal Appeal No.62/2/14, whereby though the appeal of

the petitioner has been dismissed, but the sentence imposed upon the

petitioner was reduced to the period of rigorous imprisonment for one

year.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner restrict the

arguments on sentence passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate and

submits that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence for a

period of 7 months and 26 days and requests that the petitioner has

four children and family to support, therefore the sentence imposed

upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the charge sheet are that

on 23.07.2002 at around 12 PM at Main Rohtak Road, Near Ganda

Nala, Bhim Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi, the petitioner was driving

Truck bearing No. DL-1GA-0802 in a rash and negligent manner and

hit a scooter No. DL-8SQ-117 and caused death of Deen Dayal and

Sanaullah and as such committed offence punishable under Section

279/304A of IPC. The petitioner was charged under Section

279/304A of IPC vide order on charge dated 24.12.2003 to which he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of his case, the

prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and the petitioner was

also examined under Section 313 read with Section 281 of Cr. P.C.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and for the State, learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi convicted the petitioner and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one

and half years and also directed him to pay compensation of

Rs.20,000/- to the mother of the deceased Deen Dayal alongwith

Rs.10,000/- as expenses incurred in prosecution of this matter. Feeling

aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 22.08.2014 and order on

sentence dated 27.10.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal under

Section 374 of Cr. P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

which was dismissed but the order on sentence was modified and the

sentence imposed upon the petitioner was reduced to the period of one

year.

4. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor appears

on behalf of the State and submits that the order passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal filed by the petitioner is well

justified and does not call for any interference from this Court.

5. 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.

6. 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 is a sole bread-

earner of his family having an old aged mother to look after and

family of six persons and in the considered opinion of this Court , the

petitioner has already faced agony of these proceedings for last about

14 years, and that he has already remained behind the bars in this case

for almost eight months. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that

ends of justice would be met if petitioner's substantive sentence is

reduced to the period of 9 months.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision

petition is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence to the extent

indicated above. Trial Court be apprised of this order forthwith by

sending copy of this order.

8. This revision petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

9. A copy of this order be also sent to Jail Superintendent for

information and necessary action.

P.S.TEJI, J FEBRUARY 05, 2016 pkb