Onkar Singh vs State of Haryana

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition has been directed against the judgments passed by the Courts below whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'') for causing Motor Vehicular Accident due to his rash and negligent driving resulting in death of one person and injuries to certain others i.e. occupants of Tata 609 bearing registration No. DLILB-2591 driven by the petitioner on the fateful day of 01.06.1995 in the area of Police Station Matlauda, Haryana.

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no substantial ground to assail concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in regard to conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences keeping in view limitations on the scope of intervention in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, it is submitted that the occurrence in question took place 20 years ago and there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner. The petitioner suffered actual custody for a period of 5 1/2 months out of substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court for aforesaid offences when otherwise the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the legal heirs of the deceased towards compensation, in compliance with order dated August 31, 2006 passed by the Court when the substantive sentence of the petitioner was suspended. It is prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

Counsel for the State of Haryana has not disputed factual assertions based on record. However, he has opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence.

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

The petitioner was indicted in the crime with the lodging of FIR No. 119 dated 02.06.1995 on the statement of Adrish, one of the injured-victim in the case. The trial commenced in July 1995 which culminated in the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat in September 2005. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction by the trial Court was decided in April 2006. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before this Court which was admitted on August 31,2006 and has matured now for final hearing. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner ever created any impediment in disposal of the case or delay in conclusion of proceedings is attributable to him. A long period of about 20 years has elapsed since the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He has already suffered incarceration for a period of 5 1/2 months. He has also paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. There is nothing on record to belie the contention of the petitioner that neither he is a previous convict nor any other criminal case has been registered against him.

In the light of gamut of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is reduced to the period already undergone.

The petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.