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
3 paragraphs · 196 wordsA.K. Mathur, J.—Heard, learned Counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the accused u/s 304. A and u/s 279. IPC. Learned Counsel submits that the incident is of 1982 and the accused petitioner is a poor man, therefore leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. The accused is already in jail since March 10, 1989. He has also remained in jail for two days during trial before he was bailed out. Learned Counsel submits that in the circumstance of the case the sentence of the accused may be reduced to the one already undergone.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case that since the incident is 1982 and the accused is in jail since March 10, 1989, therefore Substantive sentence of the accused u/s 304A and u/s 279A is reduced to already undergone. How ever, the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- u/s 304A. IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month''s RI. The fine, if so realised the amount of Rs. 2000/- shall be paid to the heirs of the victim.