203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Ram Pal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate (Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 25.03.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2011 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Kurukshetra, in FIR No.140 dated 28.08.2009 registered under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Ladwa, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

In default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.07.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 25.03.2014.

4. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioner inter alia contends that both the Courts below have not appreciated the fact that none of the witnesses has been examined by the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. The complainant, Ved Pal, has not disclosed the name of the petitioner neither in his complaint nor in his statement to the police. He has not even stated in his statement that he saw the petitioner on spot while driving the vehicle or even after the accident and it is a settled proposition of law that identification of the accused for the first time in Court is not sufficient to conclude the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Lastly, she submits that the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 03 months and 21 days in custody and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone a period of 03 months and 21 days in custody out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which