Reserved on:18.11.2025 Delivered on:10.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.668 of 2025 Inqalab Alam ......Revisionist Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and ors. …..Respondents Presence Mr. Vikas kumar Guglani, learned counsel for Revisionist.

Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief holder for State of Uttarakhand/1.

Mr. Naitik Bhatt, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Rishab Bisht, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned 6^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2024, whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2024 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 752 of 2020. By the said judgment, the Revisionist was convicted under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304A, along with lesser sentences for the remaining offences, and to pay a fine as stipulated therein.

2. The case, as reflected in the materials on record, is that on 07.10.2019, the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle when the vehicle was hit by an Alto car allegedly driven by the Revisionist. It was alleged that the Revisionist was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident and causing the death of the victim. The investigation culminated in the submission of the police report under Section 173 of the Code, and the learned trial court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, returned findings of guilt against the Revisionist.

3. The Revisionist preferred Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2025, challenging the conviction and sentence. A Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said revision vide order dated 05.08.2025, and the conviction attained finality at that stage.

4. Subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier revision, the parties entered into a compromise. Affidavits have been filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the informant and the father of the deceased, stating that the matter has been amicably settled and that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. On the basis of this subsequent development, the present revision has been filed seeking reconsideration of the sentence awarded to the Revisionist.

5. The Revisionist has undergone approximately three months of custodial sentence following the order of the trial court. The compromise arrived at between the parties, and the changed circumstances arising thereafter, form the foundational basis of the present Criminal Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the present Criminal Revision is maintainable by virtue of the subsequent development in the form of a lawful and voluntary compromise, which did not exist at the time when Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2025 was dismissed. It was contended that the compromise constitutes a relevant consideration for the modification of a sentence in non-heinous offences based on negligence.

7. It was argued that the conviction is founded upon findings of rash and negligent driving under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, which is not a heinous or grave offence involving mens rea, and that the Supreme Court has consistently held that in such cases, a compromise between the accused and the victim’s family may be considered for the purpose of determining a just and proportionate sentence.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the Revisionist has already undergone a substantial portion of the custodial sentence imposed upon him. In view of the amicable settlement with the family of the deceased, no useful purpose shall be served by requiring him to undergo further incarceration. It was urged that the sentence may therefore be suitably modified, keeping in view the principles of proportionalit