Ram Phal vs State of Haryana

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Ram Pal, aged 25, was convicted by the Chief JUdicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for six months and 11/2 years respectively. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to six months and nine months after taking into consideration the relevant factors. Aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, the accused has filed this revision.

According to the prosecution, Ram Pal accused knocked down and run over Swinder Singh by driving a tractor rashly and negligently on 17.5.1983 at about 9.00 p.m. Swinder Singh was rushed to the Civil Hospital with multiple injuries and he succumbed to his injuries at about 11.00 p.m. the same day.

By order dated June 2, 1989, the revision petition was admitted regarding sentence only.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial against the petitioner lasted over six years; that he was first offender; that he a large family to support and he should be awarded a suspended sentence i.e. he should be released under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. A number of precedents of this courts in which the offences under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code were admitted to probation were cited by the learned Counsel.

It may be stated at once that the sentence is a matter of judicial discretion and the impugned sentence has not been shown to be beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge. Strictly speaking, therefore, the revision must fail. It is axiomatic that the Appellate Court does its modest best to mitigate hardship including the hardship in the matter of sentence. This function has been duly discharged by the learned Sessions Judge by reducing the sentence from 11/2 years under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code to nine months. It is well known that there is no formula for determine sentence in each individual case. The learned lower appellate Court might have decided to impose a little lease or bigger sentence than the one imposed by it. There is no method of knowing as to what sentence would be appropriate in a given case. The judgment under revision shows that the relevant circumstances brought to the notice of the learned lower appellate Court were taken note of and the relief to which the accused was found entitled ws given to him. I do not think that this Court would be justified in interfering with the exercise of the discretion in the absence of cogent reasons. I am inclined to take this view especially because a tractor is a comparatively show moving vehicle and it is easy for its driver to stop it compared to a fast moving and light vehicle. Moreover, not only the deceased was knocked down by the tractor but he was actually run over by the wheel of the tractor. This goes a long way to show that the tractor was driven at a reckless speed and in a negligent manner. It may also be mentioned that after causing such a serious accident the accused tried to run away from the spot. He was chased on a motorcycle by Jeet Singh PW and stopped only after he had covered some distance. These are aggravating factors. No doubt, the trial against the accused lasted for about six years. This is an unfortunate fact which is true in a large number of cases in various parts of our country. The Courts have a lot of work to do and for various reasons delay is unavoidable. This is a feature which is found present in most of the cases and no undue importance can, therefore, be given to it. The fact remains that Swinder Singh lost his life because of the negligence or rashness of the accused. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., 1980 Supreme Court 1354 and Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 84, their Lordships of the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the decision of the lower Court in the matter of sentence as human misery was pitted against operational negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle. The precedents cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of little assistance because, as already observed, sentence is a matter of discretion with the Court and sentence is to be awarded on a conspectus of the entirety of facts and circumstances of each individual case.

For the reasons mentioned above, there is no case for interference in the sentence awarded by the learned lower appellate Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Revision dismissed.