Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijaypal vs State Of Haryana on 31 January, 2025
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016219
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.273 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31st January, 2025
Vijaypal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
1. The present revision petition arises from a conviction
recorded under Sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of the IPC. The case of
the prosecution, as set up in the FIR, is that on 19.09.2007, the
complainant, Suresh Kumar, along with the deceased and some others,
was returning from Sarvodya Hospital Hisar after visiting a relative.
When they reached near village Badwa, truck bearing registration
No.RJ-10G-1448, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came
from the opposite direction and collided with their jeep, resulting in the
injuries to the occupants. The driver of the jeep, Prem, sustained
grievous injuries and was taken immediately to Sapra Hospital, Hisar,
where he was declared "brought dead".
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly
conceded that in the light of concurrent findings of fact recorded by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016219
both the courts below, he does not seek to press the present petition on
merits. Instead, he has confined his prayer to the quantum of sentence.
3. It is urged that the accident in question dates back to the
year 2007, and the petitioner has already undergone 3 months and 3
days of imprisonment out of substantive sentence of 18 months.
Moreover, it has been urged that the petitioner has faced the ordeal of
protracted criminal proceedings spanning over several years. It is
submitted that the petitioner has been leading a disciplined and law-
abiding life and has no criminal antecedents. In these circumstances,
learned counsel prays for a lenient view and contends that no useful
purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to further
incarceration.
4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Sagar Lolienkar vs. The State of Goa' (2022)1
SCC 161, wherein the Court, while dealing with the conviction under
Section 304-A IPC, reduced the substantive sentence to the period
already undergone.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana who
is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasizing that the
conviction is based on the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both
the Courts below. However, learned State counsel on instructions, does
not dispute that, since the occurrence of the accident in 2007, the
petitioner has maintained good conduct and has not been involved in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016219
any other criminal case. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been
placed on record by the learned State counsel, which also does not
reflect his involvement in any other criminal case.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
9. It is undisputed that the incident pertains to the year 2007,
and the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal case since then.
He has endured the agony of prolonged trial proceedings for almost 17
years and has already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment.
In Sagar Lolienkar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reduced the sentence of the appellant convicted under Sections 279 and
304-A IPC, noting that the case involved rash and negligent driving
simplicitor and did not involve driving under the influence of alcohol,
which would warrant stricter punishment.
10. Similarly, in the present case, there are no allegations of
drunk-driving against the petitioner. Given the passage of time, the
petitioner's otherwise clean record, and the fact that he has already
undergone a portion of the sentence, this Court is of the considered
view that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive
sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine
imposed.
11. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner under 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of the IPC, his sentence of 18
months is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine
imposed is enhanced from `500/- to `50,000/- under Section 304-A
IPC.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016219
12. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the
enhanced fine before the trial/successor Court within a period of three
months from the date of this order, he shall not be entitled to the benefit
of sentence reduction and shall be required to undergo remaining part
of the sentence awarded to him.
13. Upon deposit of the fine, trial/successor Court shall ensure
that the enhanced amount of fine is released to the legal
representative(s) of the deceased after due verification and
identification.
14. With the aforesaid modifications, the instant revision
petition stands disposed of.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
January 31, 2025
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
