Gurjit Singh vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Rekha Mittal, J.—Custody certificate produced in Court is taken on record. Through the present petition, the petitioner assails the judgment of the Courts below, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC.

On 03.05.2013, counsel for the petitioner conceded not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, he has assailed the sentence with the submission that the same is on higher side. In view of this submission, notice of motion was issued only qua quantum of sentence.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has suffered imprisonment for a period of 4 months and 13 days. It is further submitted that there is no other criminal case pending or ever registered against him. It is further submitted that keeping in view the conduct and antecedents of the petitioner, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel has made a submission that though the petitioner is a poor person and working as a driver, he offers to pay Rs. 1 lac, as monetary compensation, to the legal heirs of the deceased.

Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. P.P. for the Union Territory submits that the family members of the deceased girl, are not interested to receive any compensation. It is argued that rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner has resulted in abrupt termination of life of a young girl in her mid twenties which disentitles the petitioner to seek indulgence in regard to quantum of sentence.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The criminal law was set in motion vide FIR No. 99 registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh on 22.03.2003. The petitioner has faced agony of investigation, trial and proceedings before the appellate Court for the last more than 10 years. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever created any hindrance in the progress of investigation and trial. It is trued that rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner has caused an unbearable loss to the family of the deceased and money is no substitute to compensate her family members.

The maximum sentence for offence u/s 304-A IPC is imprisonment for 2 years.

Keeping in view the pangs of trial and other proceedings faced by the petitioner for over 10 years coupled with his character and antecedents, the petitioner cannot be deprived to make submission for reduction of sentence.

In the light of entire gamut of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence u/s 304-A IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years. The petition stands disposed of with modification in aforesaid terms.