Faced "Agony Of Trial" For 9.5 Yrs: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces Sentence In Rash & Negligent Driving Case
Taking into consideration the "agony of trial" faced by the petitioner, who was convicted in a rash and negligent driving case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reduced the sentence of 1 year to the period of detention already undergone, i.e., 6 months.The bench comprising Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill relied on the view taken by the Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case and said that...
Taking into consideration the "agony of trial" faced by the petitioner, who was convicted in a rash and negligent driving case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reduced the sentence of 1 year to the period of detention already undergone, i.e., 6 months.
The bench comprising Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill relied on the view taken by the Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case and said that the ends of justice would be met, if his substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Taking into consideration the agony of trial faced by the petitioner for the period of 9½ years and further in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra), in my opinion, the ends of justice would be suitably met, if the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
The court was dealing with the case where the petitioner was tried and held guilty for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 279 and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304A.
Aggrieved by the above judgement the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was dismissed. Therefore, he has preferred the present revision petition.
After considering the rival submission of the parties along with the lucid examination of the record, the court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC after agreeing with the decision of conviction and sentence delivered by both the courts below.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a lucid examination of the record, this Court finds that both the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. There is no manifest error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. Thus, in my opinion, in view of the evidence on record, there is no scope for any interference in the findings of the Courts below, so far as the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is upheld.
However, the court noted that out of the substantive sentence of 01 year, the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of 06 months along with the earned remissions of 25 days.
However, the fact remains that the present FIR was registered on 29.03.2013 and out of the substantive sentence of 01 year, the petitioner has undergone the actual sentence of 06 months and 12 days as on 19.08.2022. He has also earned remissions of 25 days.
After placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 495, upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC but reduced the substantive sentence to the one already undergone by him with further direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased.
In the above observed terms, instant revision petition is disposed off.
Case title : Shri Ram v. State of Punjab
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (PH) 239