H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10.03.2021 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2016 passed by ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari was upheld whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:-

Under Section 279 IPC RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months.

Under Section 304-A IPC RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution that a telephonic intimation was received at Apex Hospital, Dharuhera regarding injuries sustained by Balwant in a roadside accident. Acting on the said information, ASI Karan Singh, along with other police officials, reached the hospital and obtained the medico-legal report (MLR) of Balwant, who had been declared dead by the attending doctor. At the hospital, Ami Lal met the police officials and made a statement to the effect that at about 4:00 p.m., while he was returning to his home in Malpura in a tempo, and when the vehicle crossed the Housing Board cut, two persons on a motorcycle coming from Gurgaon towards Dharuhera, was hit from behind by a bus being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, both riders fell and sustained injuries. Upon reaching the spot along with his co-passenger Om Parkash, he identified the injured persons as Balwant and his son Pawan. Both the injured succumbed to the injuries in the hospital while the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No. HR-55B-7117 fled the scene, leaving the vehicle behind. On the basis of the said statement, an FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered, and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, accused Sanjay was arrested and produced before the Court to face trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also contends that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 02 months and 13 days out of the awarded sentence. He prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2012, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and has filed the custody certificate in the Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the Courts below have passed well reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He submits that the petitioner in involved in one more case but has been released on bail in that case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2012 and to the petitioner has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 13 years.

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held 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, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the petitioner, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenien