Punjab & Haryana High Court: Shekher Dhawan, J. disposed of the writ petition after modifying the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

A revision petition was directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge whereby the appeal was preferred by the present petitioner which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.

The petitioner was held guilty under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Penal Code.

Facts, in brief, are that complainant-Rakhpal along with Prem Singh were going on a motorcycle. While they were on their way they found that the four other persons were going in a jeep being driven by the driver was hit by the truck which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner.  Because of the collision, persons sitting in the jeep sustained injuries and out of them, Gajender and Pawan died on the way to the hospital and injured Sompal alias Billu and Devender were admitted to the hospital. The driver of the offending truck ran away from the spot but was identified by the complainant and Prem Singh. Injured Sompal alias Billu also succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered.

The trial court held that the petitioner was guilty of commission of offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. It was contended by the counsel that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction and a lenient view on the point of the sentence be taken as the petitioner has already undergone the actual sentence of 8 months and 22 days (including remissions) against the awarded sentence of 1 year as per the custody certificate.

Ashish Sanghi, counsel for the State contended that petitioner does not deserve any concession regarding the sentence and the present revision petition be dismissed.

The Court opined that both the Courts below have already appreciated the evidence in its perspective manner. As such, the present revision petition, qua judgment of conviction passed by the Court below, stands dismissed. It was further held that as the petitioner had already undergone the actual sentence and thus the same was to be modified and reduced to the period already undergone while remaining in the custody.[Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1226, decided on 15-07-2019]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.