The court emphasized that while deterrence in sentencing is crucial, mitigating factors like prolonged trials and compensation paid to victims should also influence sentencing outcomes.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition impugning the judgment dated 11th of June, 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 7th of June, 2013 passed by JMIC, Patiala, stands dismissed.

2. Vide impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A, 337 IPC in case FIR No.620 dated 30th of December, 2007, at Police Station Sadar, Patiala and sentenced him as under :

3. As per the case of prosecution, the FIR was registered on the statement of one Dalbir Singh to the effect that on 30th of December, 2007, he was going towards Patiala from village Dhindsa on his motor-cycle. When he reached near Bossco Institute Rajpura-Patiala he saw one motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-11-AE-3258 being driven by one Sikh gentleman and two ladies were pillion riders thereupon, was hit by a Truck No.HR-46/8016 which was coming from Rajpura side in a rash and negligent manner leading to the death of Kuldeep Kaur and rest of two riders namely Tarlochan Singh and Rajwinder Kaur suffered multiple injuries. It was alleged that later on complainant came to know the name of truck driver to be Gurmukh Singh son of Bawa Singh (the present petitioner) who after the accident got down from the truck but later on fled away from the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused- petitioner was arrested. Motor-cycle involved in the accident and offending vehicle were taken into possession and after completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented.

4. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. Accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by petitioner and thus, convicted him for offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court found that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in case, finding of conviction is being maintained, the act of the petitioner is of negligence and not intentional. He is a first time offender and sole bread earner of his family. He submits that apart from this case, there is no other case pending against the petitioner. Thus he prays that a lenient view be taken against the petitioner especially in the light of the fact that he is facing protracted trial for the last 16 years.

7. Learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below have rightly found petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. It is a case wherein a precious life was lost in the accident.

8. In support of his prayer, counsel for the petitioner relies upon Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, (1973) 2 SCC 203 wherein the Apex Court taking in view the mitigating circumstances, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to a period of three weeks of imprisonment already undergone by the accused. He further relies upon Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi), (1976) 4 SCC 512 wherein the accused, convicted under Section 304A of IPC, was sentenced to two months RI and the same was reduced by Supreme Court to one month and the fine was enhanced from Rs 500 to Rs 1,000.

9. Further reliance has been placed upon the orders passed by Coordinate Bench in Nirmal Singh @ Pappu v. State of Haryana, 2008 (13) RCR (Criminal) 408 decided on 4th of March, 2008, wherein the sentence of conviction under Section 304-A was reduced to already undergone. Apex Co