Gobind Singh vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This criminal revision filed against judgment dated 9.12.1995 passed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed in the criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari vide his judgment and order dated 10.2.1995, notice was issued only qua sentence vice order dated 22.2.1996. At the time of the admission of the revision the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the petition only qua sentence and consequently, the admission was only for that limited point of consideration of sentence. The trial Magistrate convicted the revisionist for the offences under Sections 304A, 279 and 337/338 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment on the first count, six months rigorous imprisonment on the second count and one year rigorous imprisonment on the last count. The learned Magistrate ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari who dismissed the same and confirmed the conviction as also the sentence awarded to the revisionist by the Court of first instance (Judicial Magistrate Ist Class). Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of the appeal, the revisionist filed this revision and as stated above the revision was pressed for sentence only and admitted on that point.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned D.A. for State of Haryana.

Learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that the revisionist was a driver on a Canter (a small truck) which was involved in the occurrence resulting in the death of a person. The revisionist is the sole earning member in his family which comprises of his widowed mother, three children and a widowed sister who are dependant on the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist fairly conceded that there can be no adequate compensation for the death of a person in no accident but this Court should take notice of the fact that in a compensation claim filed regarding the accidental death, sufficient amount has been awarded as compensation. He has submitted that the circumstances of the revisionist and his liability to support a large family should be taken into consideration by the Court and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment which is the maximum sentence awarded to him in this case reserves to be reduced by considering the mitigating circumstances and taking a compassionate view.

The learned D.A. for the State of Haryana has relied on the case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 84 wherein it has been held that when a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion can be shown.

In the case of Rattan Singh (supra), the case of the prosecution was of rash and negligent driving resulting in fatal accident. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the truck driver was upheld and the plea of truck driver for lenient view on the ground that he had to maintain a large family and that owner of the truck has left his family in cold, was turned down.

This authority has been cited in the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class before whom similar prayer for taking lenient view, in the light of the family circumstances of the accused was prayed for. In para 12 of the judgment the pleas taken were that it was the first mistake of the accused and his aged parents and widowed sister were dependant upon him. In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the maximum sentence of one year awarded under Section 304A and under Sections 337/338 of Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be excessive.

Resultantly, this revision is devoid of any substance and is dismissed.