Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balraj Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 15 November, 2022
-1-
CRR-2317 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2317 of 2016
Date of decision: 15.11.2022
Balraj Singh
......Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Mohinder Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate,
for Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
Through this revision, petitioner-accused has laid challenge to
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2016 passed by
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby petitioner has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `5,000/- under
Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months in a case arising from FIR
No.82 dated 01.06.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC read with
Sections 304-A IPC registered at Police Station Kalanwali, Sirsa,
Haryana.
1 of 5
CRR-2317 of 2016
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
does not lay any challenge to the judgment of conviction of the petitioner
recorded by the Court below and for that reason, the facts are not required
to be reproduced here.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions only
on the aspect of sentence on which this Court has heard him as well as the
learned State counsel.
While making submissions qua the quantum of sentence,
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a first
offender; that he has no shady past and that he has been facing the agony
of the trial since 2008. Out of total sentence of one year, petitioner has
undergone sentence for more than 8½ months. He further submits that no
useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars
anymore since his sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order
dated 07.11.2016. Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon
the petitioner may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit
that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the offence
committed by him. The petitioner does not deserve any leniency.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a
lucid examination of the record, this Court finds that the appellate Court
rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279 and
304-A IPC. There is no manifest error in the findings recorded by the
2 of 5
CRR-2317 of 2016
court below.
However, the fact remains that the FIR was registered in the
year 2008 and as per custody certificate dated 14.11.2022, petitioner has
already undergone actual sentence for 08 months and 06 days.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh
Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 495, while setting aside the order of the
High Court, thereby reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused i.e.
1 year to the period already undergone by him i.e. 24 days, awarded the
sentence of six months to the accused-respondent therein. It was held as
under:-
"17. In the instant case the factum of rash and
negligent driving has been established. This court has
been constantly noticing the increase in number of
road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle
drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems
to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and
negligent manner or driving with youthful
adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic
rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre
stage.
The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect
for law. A man with the means has, in possibility,
graduated himself to harbour the idea that he can
escape from the substantive sentence by payment of
compensation. Neither the law nor the court that
implements the law should ever get oblivious of the
fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or
the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in
a way, worse than death. Such developing of notions
3 of 5
CRR-2317 of 2016
is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly society.
Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all
circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is
as worth living for as it is to the rich and the
luxuriously temperamental. Needless to say, the
principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective
measures but there are occasions when the
deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon
the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case
where we are constrained to say that the High Court
has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in
applying the principle that payment of compensation
is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is
absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is,
in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the
crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and "queen
of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights
not only the lives of the victims but of many others
around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the
public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of
one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which
has been affirmed by the appellate court should be
reduced to six months."
Taking into consideration the agony of trial faced by the
petitioner for the period of 14 years and further in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra), in my opinion,
the ends of justice would be suitably met, if the substantive sentence
imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of the
4 of 5
CRR-2317 of 2016
petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the substantive sentence
imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by
him.
Disposed of.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
15.11.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
