Rajinder Pal Singh vs State (U.T.Chandigarh)

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

Rajinder Pal Singh (petitioner herein) was convicted under Sections 279/304A, I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment vide judgment/order dated 27.1.1987.

His appeal to the Court of Sessions failed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 8.9.1988 maintained the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the Judicial Magistrate vide the aforesaid order. However, before parting with the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made the following observations :

"Before parting with this judgment, 1 must observe that the learned Magistrate has not specifically imposed any sentence on the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 279 IPC. He was required to do so, but the State has not filed any cross appeal against the same. It will, therefore, be deemed that no separate sentence was passed by the learned Magistrate for the commission of the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ shall be deemed to have been imposed for the commission of the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code."

Having felt that he has been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the Courts below, Rajinder Pal Singh has come up in revision to this Court namely criminal revision No. 966 of 1988.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.3.1985, Murari Lal and Tikka Ram Bahadur were proceeding towards Sector 41. In the meanwhile, the accused came driving three wheeler scooter bearing registration No. CHV771 from back side rashly and negligently and struck against Tikka Ram Bahadur who fell on the road after sustaining multiple serious injuries. He was removed to the PGI where he succumbed to his injuries.

After the completion of investigation, challan was put in the Court against the petitioner. After conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as noticed above.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner could not successfully assail the conviction of the petitioner.

Admittedly, right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his right or personal property except according to the procedure established by law. The scope of this article also covers, the right to have a speedy trial. A speedy trial is essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner faced threat of conviction in the Court of learned Magistrate for more than 133/4 years. He was convicted. Thereafter, he filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. He had to wait for more than 11/2 years till the appeal was dismissed on 8.9.1988. Thereafter he filed this revision in September, 1988. He has thus been facing the ordeal of litigation for the last more than 14 years. He remained under agony and pressure of conviction and sentence for all these years. In these circumstances, judicial compassion plays a role and the petitioner can be compensated for the mental agony, which he had undergone on account of protracted trial for no fault of his. This fact can be taken into account in awarding lesser sentence as the ordeal of this case has been hanging on his head like a damoclean sword for the last more than 14 years. Therefore, I feel that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner should be reduced. Conviction of the petitioner is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Sentence of fine together with the default clause shall remain.

Due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, Tikka Ram Bahadur has died. The legal representatives of Tikka Ram Bahadur have the right to vindicate the wrong done to the deceased. It is the duty of the Court to do justice to the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ which shall be paid to the legal representatives of Tikka Ram Bahadur. The amount of fine already imposed by the trial Court shall not be adjusted against the fine now imposed by this Court. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 2,000/ within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the legal representatives of deceased shall be entitled to the same. This order is conditional and in case the petitioner fails to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2,000/ within the stipulated period, his revision shall stand dismissed and he shall undergo remaining period of sentence.

This Criminal Revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above.