The court has the discretion to reduce the substantive sentence based on the period already undergone by the petitioner and may consider payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Custody certificate dated 19.08.2022 by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Hoshiarpur, filed in the Court, is taken on record.

2. The petitioner was tried in case bearing FIR No.40 dated 29.03.2013, registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2017, found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him as under:

3. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which had been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022.

4. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner does not lay any challenge to the judgments of conviction of the petitioner recorded by the courts below and for that reason, the facts are not required to be reproduced here.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions only on the aspect of sentence on which this Court has heard him as well as the learned State counsel.

7. While making submissions qua the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a first offender; that he has no shady past; that he has been facing the agony of the trial since 2013; that he is the only bread winning member of his family, and that his conduct during the trial has been quite fair and bona fide and he has never obstructed the course of trial and the appeal. The petitioner has already undergone the actual sentence of 06 months and 12 days as 19.08.2022. He has also earned remissions of 25 days. Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the offence committed by him. The petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 495, while setting aside the order of the High Court, thereby reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused i.e. 1 year to the period already undergone by him i.e. 24 days, awarded the sentence of six months to the accused-respondent therein. It was held as under:-

"17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in