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
4 paragraphs · 178 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner recorded u/s 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has simply prayed that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence as the present occurrence took place on 15.5.1986 and since then the petitioner is suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no serious objection if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is facing the protracted litigation for the last more than 16 years, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to five months on both courts. Order accordingly. The imposition of fine, if any, is not disturbed.
With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.