262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 JASWANT ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavata, AAG Haryana.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 15.12.2018/20.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’) in the case stemming from FIR No. 306 dated 21.04.2014 registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, have been upheld.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for driving the vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner and causing accident and liable for death of three persons and causing injuries to the complainant Dharmender and Poonam, as mentioned below:

304-A of IPC Simple imprisonment Rs. Simple imprisonment for for two years 1,000/- 30 days All sentences were ordered to run concurrently

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 20.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a period of 01 year and

17 days out of total sentence of 02 years imposed upon him.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted for driving the vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner and causing accident and liable for death of three persons and causing injuries to the complainant Dharmender and Poonam, attracting the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 01 year and 17 days out of total sentence of 02 years in the instant case. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits. Rather, he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of order on quantum of sentence. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279, 337 and

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.

6. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of 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 the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to