Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 22 November, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
250
CRR-1890-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: November 22nd, 2024
Vicky
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2023 passed
by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, which was later
upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide
judgment dated 24.07.2024.
2. The case of the prosecution may be noticed as thus:
3. An FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant, who
alleged that on 26.08.2016 at approximately 3:00 PM, he was travelling
on his motorcycle, bearing registration number PB 46Q 7722 from Tarn
Taran to his Village Nahtu Chak. Following him on another motorcycle,
Discover, bearing registration number PB 46 R 5267, were his brother
Gurlal Singh, and a friend, Ravi Karan Singh, son of Paramjeet Singh.
They were returning after attending IELTS classes.
4. As they approached Lohak, a white Innova car bearing
registration number PB 30K 9546, travelling at an excessively high
CRR-1890-2024 (O&M) -2-
speed, collided with the motorcycle ridden by Gurlal Singh. The impact
of the collision caused severe injuries to both, Gurlal Singh and
Ravi Karan Singh, particularly to their heads and legs. The tyre of the
Innova vehicle burst due to the high speed at which it was being driven.
Both injured individual persons were rushed to Civil Hospital,
Tarn Taran, where Gurlal Singh was declared dead. The accident, as
alleged by the complainant, was a result of the rash and negligent
driving of the accused-petitioner Vicky.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset does not
contest the findings of guilt recorded by both the Courts below. Instead,
he has restricted his submissions to the quantum of the sentence only.
It has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already
undergone 3 months and 28 days of the substantive sentence of
two years imposed upon him. Furthermore, the accident in question
dates back to the year 2016 and the petitioner has already endured the
ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, culminating in his conviction
on 29.08.2023. It has been further highlighted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner has since maintained a discipline and
law-abiding life, shouldering numerous responsibilities. It has also been
submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, and
sending him back to serve the remaining part of his sentence would
serve no constructive purpose. A prayer has, therefore, been made for
this Court to adopt a lenient approach in the light of the above
circumstances.
6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Sagar Lolienkar Versus State of Goa 2012 (1) SCC 161, wherein
CRR-1890-2024 (O&M) -3-
Hon'ble the Supreme Court had reduced the sentence of a convict under
Section 304A of the IPC to the period already undergone, recognizing
the mitigating circumstances of the case.
7. Learned State counsel however, has opposed the plea for
leniency, emphasizing that the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by
the trial Court and the Appellate Court have remained unchallenged.
However, learned State counsel has acknowledged that since the
accident in question, the petitioner has maintained good conduct and has
not been involved in any other criminal activity. The custody certificate
placed on record by the learned State counsel also corroborates this
assertion.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
by both the parties and examined the material on record. The petitioner
was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Offence(s) u/s Period of Fine Period of sentence
sentence(s) imposed in default of
payment of fine
279 IPC R.I. for 6 months `500/- S.I. for 15 days
304-A IPC R.I. for 2 years `2,000/- S.I. for one month
10. The accident in question resulted in the loss of one life and
had taken place almost eight years back. Since then, the petitioner, as
not disputed by the learned State counsel also, has led a disciplined and
law-abiding life, devoid of any further involvement in any other
criminal activities. It is but obvious that the prolonged ordeal of the
petitioner during the trial would have had a substantial impact on his
personal and professional life.
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sagar Lolienkar's case
(supra) has categorically held that sentences in cases under Section
CRR-1890-2024 (O&M) -4-
304A of the IPC could be reduced to the period already undergone if the
circumstances do not demonstrate aggravated negligence, such as
drunken driving. In the present case, there were no allegations of
drunken driving or any other aggravating factors.
12. In light of the above, this Court deems it just and
appropriate to uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section
304A of the IPC, however, it does not deem it necessary to send him
back to custody. Consequently, the substantive sentence of the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.
13. However, to balance the scales of justice, the fine imposed
under Section 304A of the IPC from ₹2,000/- is enhanced to ₹35,000/-.
It is directed that the petitioner deposit enhanced fine amount within
three months before the trial/successor Court.
14. In case of non-payment of the enhanced fine within the
stipulated period, the benefit of sentence reduction would not accrue to
the petitioner, and he would be required to undergo the remainder of the
original sentence.
15. With these modifications, the instant petition stands
disposed of.
November 22nd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
