Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The petitioner, herein who stood charged under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three more months by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. In police challan No. 57/2 dated 4.11.1985, aggrieved by which the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 15.6.1994. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, confirmed the conviction of and sentence passed against the petitioneraccused and dismissed the same, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has come revision to this Court.

Though the revision was directed against the conviction and the sentence, at the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the arguments to the question of sentence only and did not press the revision with regard to the conviction. Therefore, the conviction under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed.

The learned trial Magistrate sentenced the revisionpetitioner to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year only, but, by mistake the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has observed in the course of his judgment that the sentence awarded to the revisionpetitioner herein namely, two years is confirmed, and is not excessive. This observation is not correct inasmuch as the petitioner has been awarded only Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Be that as it may, the question now is whether the sentence awarded to the petitioner calls for any modification.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that this is a case of the year 1985, that the petitioneraccused has undergone the agony of going to the court for the last ten years and had also already undergone the sentence of one month and thirteen days. Pointing out these factors, he contended that accusedpetitioner may be let off with a finding that the sentence already undergone by him is sufficient.

I have heard the counsel appearing for the State also and I am unable to find anything which will stand in the way of modifying the sentence imposed upon the revisionpetitioner.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had undergone the agony of attending courts for the last ten years and had actually undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one month and thirteen days and also the fact that he has three children, old parents and a wife, who are dependent upon him, I feel that the interest of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is modified from that of one year to that of the period already undergone by him, apart from directing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

In the result the revisionpetition is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence awarded to him is modified in that the period already undergone by the revisionpetitioner is held sufficient, but, at the same time the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On payment of the fine before this Court, the amount shall be forwarded to the Magistrate concerned and the amount of fine should be paid over to the legal heirs of both the deceased equally as compensation, and the petitioner will be released.