Krishan Kumar vs State

V.B. Bansal, J.—On 4th January, 1984 at about 4 p.m. an accident took place in which two persons, namely, Vijay Kumar Malik and Sona Devi died. Krishan Kumar Petitioner is stated to be the person who was driving truck No. DHG 4555. The truck was being driven from the side of Possangipur at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner going towards Najafgarh side. One Tempo No. DEL 7749 was being driven from Najafgarh side. The said truck is stated to have hit the Tempo on its right hand side and thereafter hit a two-wheeler scooter No. CPK 9027 being driven by Vijay Kumar Malik who was going towards B-l, Niti Marg. Not only that the truck hit against the Tempo and two-wheeler scooter but continued moving at a fast speed and struck against the wall of House No. B-l/456, Janakpuri, as a result of which a portion of the wall also fell down. Sona Devi standing near the said wall came under the wall. Both the injured persons, i.e., scooter driver and Sona Devi, were removed to the hospital where they died.

After investigation the Petitioner was challaned for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, in F.I.R. No. 6/84, P.S. Janakpuri. Plea of the accused was that of denial. The learned trial court after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the Petitioner committed an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, vide its judgment dated 15.3.1990. The Petitioner was sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo further R.I. for 45 days u/s 279, Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded u/s 304A, Indian Penal Code, was R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- or in default to undergo further R.I. for six months vide order dated 19.3.1990 by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

The Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate by way of filing an appeal. The same was, however, dismissed by an Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 29.10.1990.

Still being not satisfied Krishan Kumar has filed this revision petition against the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the two courts below.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. I.U. Khan and Mr. B.D. Batra, Standing Counsel for the State.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not challenged the concurrent finding of the two courts below with regard to the conviction of the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code. He has restricted his submissions only on one point.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that for this incident of 4.1.1984 Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial inasmuch as the order of conviction is dated 15.3.1990. He has also submitted that after the dismissal of appeal the Petitioner was taken into custody on 29th October, 1990 and since then he is in jail. Another submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been that the Petitioner has clean antecedents and has to support his family and he has a minor son and there is no other earning member and so prayer has been made for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

This prayer has been opposed by learned Standing Counsel who has submitted that the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner is writ large on the facts and not only that the Petitioner hit against a Tempo but the truck hit against a two-wheeler scooter and struck against a wall with such force that even the wall fell down. He has submitted that keeping in view all these facts coupled with the fact of two precious lives lost in this incident it is not a fit case for the grant of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions and have no doubt in my mind that no case is made out for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for leniency. He has submitted that the Petitioner has already deposited Rs. 4,000/- as fine imposed by the trial court. He has also submitted that the Petitioner has been in custody for over four months and prays that the sentence may be reduced to the period for which the Petitioner has been in custody. This prayer again has been opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. The offence u/s 304A, Indian Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been that the learned lower courts in their wisdom thought it proper to prescribe substantive sentence for this offence and that the Petitioner has already been in jail for four months and this period may be considered to be sufficient punishment. However, I am conscious of the fact as to how much rash and negligent the Petitioner was which resulted in such an accident.

Considering all the facts, I am clearly of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence u/s 304A, Indian Penal Code, is reduced to R.I. for one year.

As a result, the revision petition is accepted in part. The conviction of the Petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, is maintained. The order of sentence is, however, modified. The substantive sentence u/s 304A, Indian Penal Code, is reduced to R.I. for one year. The sentence of fine for this offence and the sentence awarded for the offence u/s 279, Indian Penal Code, are maintained. Both the substantive sentences shall, however, run concurrently.