Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State N.C.T Of Delhi on 18 July, 2025
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 18.07.2025
+ CRL.REV.P. 109/2025
PRAMOD KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner is present through
CJ-02, Tihar through vc
Mr. Adv. (appearance not
given)
versus
STATE N.C.T OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the
State with ASI Om Prakash,
P.S.Sarai Rohilla.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
CRL.M.A. 9423/2025 DELAY 8 DAYS IN FILING OF
PETITION.
Bearing in mind the reasons explained in the application, delay
of 8 days in filing the petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 109/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9424/2025 STAY
1. Revisionist has filed the revision petition seeking to set aside
the order dated 12.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Central as well as the judgment dated 23.12.2019, passed by
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Central.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.07.2008 at
about 5.00 am, truck bearing No. HR38-3960, driven by the revisionist
in a rash and negligent manner, hit motorcycle bearing No. DL8S-AN-
2883 from behind, thereby, causing injuries to Om Prakash and
Neelam, whereas, Saroj was dragged by the truck and she died at the
spot.
3. FIR bearing No. 168/2008 was registered at Police Station Sarai
Rohilla and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the revisionist. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC,
charges under Section 279/3378/304-A IPC and under Section 3/181
M.V. Act were framed against the revisionist. Revisionist pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
4. Vide judgment dated 23.12.2019, revisionist was convicted by
the trial court under Section 279/337/304-A IPC and under Section
3/181 M.V. Act. Vide order dated 08.03.2022, he has been sentenced
with simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months for commission of
offence under Section 279 IPC. Further, convict is also sentenced with
simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months under Section 304-A
IPC. He is further sentenced with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence
under Section 3/181 M.V. Act. Cost of Rs. 9500/- was also imposed
on the revisionist, to be appropriated towards the cost incurred by the
State.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, revisionist preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions
Court. By its judgment dated 12.12.2024, the Sessions Court
dismissed the appeal.
6. During the pendency of the petition, learned counsel for the
revisionist submitted before the court that revisionist does not want to
challenge the judgment of conviction and that present revision petition
may be treated as prayer for reduction of the remaining sentence. In
this regard, the affidavit of the Pairokar of the revisionist has also been
placed on record.
7. Warrants were issued for the production of the revisionist, who
is presently serving sentence in jail. He appeared through VC and
confirmed that he does not want to challenge the judgment of
conviction but prayed for reduction for his remaining sentence.
8. Learned counsel, who appears for the revisionist, submits that
revisionist is the first time offender, being not involved in any other
criminal case. The maximum substantive imprisonment awarded to
him is of 4 months for the offence under Section 279/304-A IPC. The
sentence awarded under both the offences has been ordered to run
concurrently and out of 4 months period, he has already served the
sentence for more than 3 months. He further submits that revisionist is
a young man and the only bread-earner of his family, comprising of
five members. He faced the agony of trial for about ten years. He
prays for a lenient view.
9. The VIR and Verification Report, sent by learned Secretary,
DLSA before the trial court, confirms that the entire family of the
revisionist is dependent upon his earning and family of the deceased
and injured have been granted sufficient compensation by the MACT
Court. The order reflects that revisionist has deposited the cost and
fine imposed by the trial court.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Court is of the view that revisionist has already undergone sufficient
punishment and no useful purpose shall be served by keeping him in
jail for the remaining period of sentence. Accordingly, while
maintaining the judgment of conviction against the revisionist, the
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody
till date.
11. Revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.
12. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
JULY 18, 2025
RM
