Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The instant revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC as recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on 13.2.2002 and upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 8.2.2003.

According to the prosecution, the accident in question had taken place on 11.3.1994 at about 8.00 P.M. when a truck bearing registration No. HNK-9694 came from the side of Karnal in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter on which Jaipal and Jagdish were sitting. Due to the impact of the accident, both, Jaipal and Jagdish fell on the road and sustained injuries on their heads, legs and hands. Both the injured became unconscious as a result of the injuries whereas the truck driver escaped from the spot. Later on, Jaipal succumbed to his injuries on 12.3.1994 when he was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on account of overwhelming evidence available on the file, he is not in a position to challenge the conviction of his client for the aforementioned offences. However, he has submitted that the accident in question had taken place more than 16 years ago; the petitioner is not a previous convict; he is the sole bread earner of his family; and he has already undergone some period in jail as a convict. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that by his rash and negligent driving of the truck, the petitioner caused an accident in which Jaipal lost his life and his brother Jagdish received injuries. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. However, he has produced the custody certificate, as per which the petitioner remained in jail as a convict for 14 days.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to undergo his substantive sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon the petitioner for offence u/s 304A IPC can be suitably enhanced so as to compensate the legal heirs of deceased Jaipal.

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the various offences is upheld. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of the petitioner on all the counts are reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed upon the petitioner for the offence u/s 304A IPC is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/-, which be deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court within four months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine, if paid, an amount of Rs. 38,000 be paid to the legal heirs of Jaipal-deceased as compensation.

But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed.