SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Bom) 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
B.R.GAVAI, J
Rafiq Khan s/o. Wasin Khan - APPLICANT
VERSUS
Mohd. Shafi s/o. Sk. Abbas and anr - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO:367 OF 2006
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO:3746 OF 2006
Decided on : December 12, 2006

Advocates appeared
Shri Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs. Monika Purnapatre, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Shri K.G.Patil, Kishor Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor

The court has the discretion to modify the substantive sentence based on the circumstances of the case, including the realization that the incident was an accident, the payment of compensation, and the joint prayer of the applicant and the first informant.

Headnote:

Modification of Sentence - Criminal Law - The court allowed the modification of the substantive sentence based on the circumstances of the case, including the realization by the first informant that the incident was an accident and not a deliberate act, the payment of compensation, and the joint prayer of the applicant and the first informant. The court considered this as a fit case for modifying the sentence already undergone by the applicant.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought modification of the substantive sentence for offences under Section 279 and Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, based on the circumstances of the case, including the realization by the first informant that the incident was an accident and not a deliberate act, the payment of compensation, and the joint prayer of the applicant and the first informant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circumstances of the case warranted the modification of the sentence already undergone by the applicant, despite the offences being non-compoundable.

Issues: The issues involved the modification of the substantive sentence for non-compoundable offences, considering the circumstances of the case and the joint prayer of the applicant and the first informant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the realization that the incident was an accident, the payment of compensation, and the joint prayer of the applicant and the first informant, leading to the modification of the sentence already undergone by the applicant.

Final Decision: The court allowed the modification of the substantive sentence in terms of the prayer clause of the criminal application, allowing Criminal Revision Application No.367 of 2006 and Criminal Application No.3746 of 2006.

ORDER :

1. By way of criminal application No.3746 of 2006, the applicant is seeking modification of the substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code as per the judgment and order dated 3.10.2001 in Regular Criminal Case No.21 of 1996 and confirmed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Jalgaon, vide judgment dated 30.10.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2001.

2. It is not in dispute that the offence was registered as an outcome of an accident. The incident had taken place in the year 1995. A period of 11 years has lapsed thereafter. The present applicant and the first informant are known to each other. The first informant has realised that the incident was the outcome of an accident and not a deliberate act on the part of the applicant. He is not interested to see that the applicant undergoes the custody. The applicant has also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-. In addition to the same, the family of the deceased was awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The applicant as well as the first informant have jointly prayed that the sentence may be modified to the period of sentence already undergone by the applicant.

3. The applicant so also the first informant are personally present in the Court. Though the offences are non-compoundable, I think that this is a fit case wherein the order of sentence can be modified to the sentence already undergone by the applicant. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow Criminal Application No.3746 of 2006.

4. Criminal Revision Application No.367 of 2006 and Criminal Application No.3746 of 2006 are allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) of Criminal Application NO.3746 of 2006.

Application allowed



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top