Lalan Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Azimuddin, counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent-State.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case has been filed for setting-aside the judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 121 of 2007 as also the judgment dated 10.09.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in T. R. No. 523 of 2007 and G. R. No. 1813 of 2003, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of One Year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine further two months S.I. for the offences under Section 304-A IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his argument on the point of sentence. He submits that the date of occurrence is 31.07.2003 and on the date of conviction i.e. on 10.09.2007, the petitioner was aged about 50 years. The appellate order was passed on 28.08.2008 and as on date, the age of the petitioner is about 62 years. The counsel further submits that the petitioner is a driver and there is conviction under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioner. He submits that it was just an accident and the conduct of the driver (Petitioner) itself indicates his good behaviour, in as much as, he had taken the injured to the hospital and did not try to escape from the scene. He further submits that the conviction was for a period of two years, but the appellate authority had reduced it to one year, considering the conduct of the petitioner and fine of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as the period for which the petitioner has faced the rigors of the criminal proceedings is concerned, it has not been considered by the learned lower appellate court and that may be considered while disposing of this petition.

Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent-State, on the other hand, submits that one girl has expired on account of rash and negligent act of the driver (Petitioner) and the family members are the victim and they are required to be given some amount by way of victim compensation to be borne by the petitioner. However, he does not dispute the fact that it has been duly recorded in the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court that the petitioner himself had taken the girl to the hospital, where she ultimately succumbed to the injuries. He does not dispute that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period from 01.08.2003 to 08.08.2003 during trial and thereafter from 10.09.2008 to 25.09.2008, when the matter was pending before this Court. Thus, the total period of custody of the petitioner is about 23 days as per the aforesaid dates, but after the order of bail which was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.09.2008, the petitioner must have remained in custody for further one or two days.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that at present the petitioner is about 62 years of age and the petitioner has faced the rigors of the criminal proceedings since 2003 and the petitioner has shown his good conduct by taking the victim to the hospital and he did not try to escape from the place of occurrence. In such circumstances, ends of justice would be served if a lenient view is taken and fine amount is enhanced. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified and the petitioner is convicted to the period which the petitioner has already undergone and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of two months from today.

Upon deposit of the fine amount, the same is directed to be given to the mother of the deceased after proper identification.

If the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time by the petitioner, the petitioner would undergo the punishment which has already been imposed by the learned trial court read with the judgment passed by learned lower appellate court.

Accordingly, this revision application is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in sentence.