Satyawan v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In a criminal revision, the High Court of Delhi held that the petitioner, a sole bread-earner who had served over a year of sentence, should not undergo further rigorous imprisonment for Section 304A IPC. The remaining sentence for that offence was modified to the period already undergone.
What did the court decide?
The period of sentence under Section 304A IPC is modified to the period already undergone; the order regarding compensation default remains unchanged.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~43
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.REV.P. 268/2017 SATYAWAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. O.P. Saxena with Ms.Usha Saxena, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP SI Deepak Panwar, PS Hajrat Nizamuddin. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 12.01.2018
CRL.REV.P. 268/2017 & Crl.M.A.20308/2017 (for issuance of production warrant)
- The petitioner impugns order dated 22.11.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the criminal appeal No.204204/2016 filed by the petitioner against order dated 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.186/2000 under Section 279/304A IPC, Police Station Hajrat Nizamuddin, whereby, the petitioner was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 304A IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased in 10 monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default of payment, to undergo a simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
CRL.REV.P. 268/2017
Page 1
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, being a sole bread-earner with family dependents and having served a significant part of his sentence, should be granted relief by modifying the remaining sentence for Section
Whether the court should interfere with the order regarding the payment of compensation and consequence of simple imprisonment upon default in payment.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Satyawanan
- respondent
State
Coram
Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court