Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3501
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Hari Pal Verma, J.
Angrej Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3696 of 2014
Decided On : 03-10-2018
Mohan Lal Singla, Adv., Manish Bansal, Adv.
The court has the discretion to consider the petitioner's circumstances, including antecedents and time served, in determining the appropriate quantum of sentence.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Quantum of Sentence - Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC - The court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner, considering his antecedents and the protracted trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal revision against the judgment convicting and sentencing him for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner did not challenge the conviction but argued for a reduction in the quantum of sentence based on his circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner, considering his antecedents and the protracted trial.
Issues: The main issue was the quantum of sentence for the petitioner, who did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in the sentence based on his circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's antecedents, the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for a significant period, and the absence of any other pending cases against him in deciding to reduce the sentence to the period already served.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition but modified the order of sentence, reducing the petitioner's imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine imposed.
JUDGMENT
Hari Pal Verma, J. - The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision against the judgment dated 18.04.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby his appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2013 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, FIR No.118 dated 20.11.2007 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC was registered against the petitioner-accused at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal on the basis of statement made by injured-complainant Naresh Kumar. As per the FIR, on 19.11.2007, complainant Naresh Kumar along with Rajender had gone to grain market, Dhand to meet his friend Parveen on his motorcycle make Splendor Plus. Thereafter, complainant Naresh Kumar, Rajender and Parveen Kumar left for village Kaul. The motorcycle was being driven by Rajender, whereas the complainant and Parveen Kumar were sitting as pillion riders. At about 08.15 P.M., when they reached near village Chandlana, a canter bearing registration No.HR-38-BG-4590 being driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner came from the front side and collided with their motorcycle from the left side. As a result thereof, Rajender and Parveen Kumar sustained a number of injuries on their person, whereas complainant Naresh Kumar suffered some minor injuries. On asking, the driver of canter disclosed his name as Angrej son of Jagat Ram, resident of Jyotisar, District Kurukshetra. In the meantime, police reached there and shifted them to the hospital. However, injured Rajender succumbed to his injuries, whereas injured Parveen Kumar was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh for treatment.
3. Investigation was conducted by the police. The petitioner was arrested and produced in the Court. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, Challan was filed in the Court.
4. The copy of Challan as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.PC was supplied to the petitioner free of cost. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC vide order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the trial Court, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.03.2013 convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and vide separate order dated 19.03.2013 sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as under:
| Offence | Sentence |
| 279 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week |
| 337 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of s. 300/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. |
| 338 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. |
| 304-A IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. |
6. It was, however, ordered that all the aforementioned sentences shall run concurrently.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the Court of Session. However, vide judgment dated 18.04.2014, learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissed the said appeal.
8. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision.
9. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the convicti
