The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of deterrence and the consideration of the petitioner's first-time offender status in determining the quantum of sentence.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Ihingan, J. - Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.

2. This criminal revision petition is filed being aggrieved of conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short 'IPC'] vide judgment dated 6th January, 2018 and order dated 8th January, 2018 of quantum of sentence. Further, upholding of conviction by dismissal of appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on 2nd April, 2021 is also under challenge.

3. The relevant facts are that on 23rd February, 2015, Sonu (injured] was brought to the hospital whereas Lalit was declared brought dead. Statement of Sonu was recorded, he stated that he alongwith his friend Lalit (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'] were going on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-36R-9607. The deceased was driving the motorcycle. On reaching near Lukas TVS Company, a bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-5075 [hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'] driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle from the front side. The driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot. Sonu sustained injuries whereas deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident.

4. The prosecution proved its case by examining ten prosecution witnesses which included the complainant Sonu [PW1], Dr. Pinkesh Dhariwal [PW4] and Investigating Officer ASI Rajender Singh [PW5]. The mechanical report was pressed into service to set up the case against the petitioner. In spite of the fact that Jaipal Solanki [PW10] turned hostile, the prosecution was able to prove the accident and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:-

The appeal filed against the conviction was dismissed.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the quantum of sentence. He submits that FIR was registered on 23rd February, 2015, the petitioner has faced agony of trial for more than six years. He has undergone more than six months custody, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that a human life was lost due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Submission is that learned trial Court appreciated the evidence and after analysing the facts on record, convicted the petitioner and no interference is called for. Custody certificate by the State is filed today, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of five months and twenty six days including remission, the total sentence is six months and six days.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record.

8. There is no ground made out in the revision petition for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and the appellate order. The conviction of the petitioner is upheld.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding quantum of sentence deserves acceptance. As per the custody certificate the petitioner has undergone total sentence of six months and six days including remission.

10. It would be appropriate to note at this stage that FIR was registered on 23rd February, 2015, the petitioner has faced agony of trial for more than six and a half year.

11. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 495, while setting aside the order of the High Court, reduced the sentence of one year to twenty four days i.e. period already undergone, awarded sentence of six months to the accused. The relevant para is quoted below:-

"17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has b