Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC9 Jan 2018CRL.REV.P./298/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner, convicted of rash driving causing death, sought anticipatory release as he had served virtually the entire sentence. The Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone and released the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order on sentence was modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner and he was released in this case if not required in any other case.

Raj Kumar Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~35

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2018

¶4

CRL.REV.P. 298/2017 RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent

¶7

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶8

For the Petitioner :Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for the State SI Ashish Gaba, P.S. Kashmere Gate

¶9

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

09.01.2018

¶12

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CRL.REV.P. 298/2017 & Crl.M.(B) 712/2017(suspension of sentence)

¶14

The petitioner impugns judgment dated 09.03.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.12/2015, whereby the Appeal against Conviction Order dated 16.07.2015 and order dated 14.08.2015 on point of sentence has been rejected.

¶15

The petitioner was convicted for having committed an offence

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

CRL.REV.P. 298-2017

¶18

on 01.03.2007 under Sections 279/304-A IPC of rash and negligent driving and causing death by negligence.

¶19

The petitioner was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 279 IPC along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for 15 days and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for a further period of one month.

¶20

The Nominal Roll has been received from the concerned Superintendent Jail. The Nominal Roll shows that the petitioner has undergone major part of the sentence and only 28 days are remaining to be served. The Nominal Roll indicates that the jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the only bread earner in the family having seven dependent members and was a driver earning very meagre amount. He submits that dependents of the petitioners are meeting their day-today expenses with the great difficulty.

¶22

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the Petition. He submits that the maximum sentence awardable under Section 304-A is two years. A lenient view has already been taken in the case of petitioner and only a sentence of one year has been awarded.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

CRL.REV.P. 298-2017

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner has already undergone, virtually, the entire sentence and only 28 days, as of today, are remaining to be served and also that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory and the fact that the petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family and has to support his dependents and has realised his mistake and is remorseful of his act, though I am not inclined to interfere with the findings returned in the conviction order dated 16.07.2015 or the order in Appeal dated 09.03.2017, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given a chance to reform himself. Consequently, the order on sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him in this case.

¶26

In view of the above, the petitioner be released in this case, if not required in any other case.

¶27

The Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.

¶28

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. Order be also communicated to the concerned Superintendent, Jail for compliance.

¶29

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶30

JANUARY 09, 2018 ‘sn’

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

CRL.REV.P. 298-2017

Raj Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Reena Devi & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Sunny Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Arun Kumar & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Yash Kapoor & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Gurcharan Singh Khara Vs Smt Vaneeta Khanna