High CourtsSingle Bench

Kishan vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 November 2009 · Citation: (2010) 1 RCR(Criminal) 77601

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 279, 304A
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Rev. No. 2237 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 399 words

Arvind Kumar, J.—The petitioner is undergoing substantive sentence of one year awarded by the learned trial court, as upheld by the learned appellate Court under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code for having driven Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-18C-3640 rashly and negligently on 16.7.2000 and for causing accident, resulting into death of Anil and Vikram. The petitioner was awarded three months RI u/s 279 IPC with fine of Rs. 200/- while for committing an offence u/s 304-A IPC, imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 800/- was awarded. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Fine is stated to have been paid by the convict before the trial court.

2.

Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgments of conviction and sentence returned by two of the Courts below.

3.

On October 28, 2009 when this revision petition came up for hearing, it was admitted only to the limited extent of quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel on the quantum of sentence.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has under gone the agony of protracted trial and thereafter of appeal for about 9 years and he is behind the bars for about three and a half months. That apart, it has been pleaded that the family of the deceased has already been compensated by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide a separate award. Thus leniency has been sought. Undisputedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2000 and since then the petitioner has suffered agony of trial as well as the appeal before the appellate Court below. There is nothing which is suggestive of the fact that after his release on bail, the present petitioner has acted in manner prejudicial to law an order or that he is again found involved in similar type of offence.

5.

For the discussion above, the sentence awarded to the petitioner u/s 304-A IPC is reduced to the period of six months, which shall run concurrently with the other sentence awarded to the petitioner u/s 279 IPC. However, the sentence of fine is maintained.

With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of.