Allowed

Ismail v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2012CRR/505/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the accused's sentence to the period already undergone for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC due to a decade-long trial delay. The conviction was upheld but the fine was enhanced to Rs.35,000 payable to the victims' heirs before the appellant's release.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.35,000 payable to heirs; appellant released thereafter.

Ismail Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Revision No.505 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Revision No.505 of 2012 Date of decision:18.4.2012

Ismail

...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr.Neeraj Gaur, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8.8.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the learned trial Court was upheld and following sentence of the accused/petitioners was affirmed:-

¶15

(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279, IPC ; and in default of payment of fine, the accused would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of for one month.

¶16

(ii) For the offence under Section 304-A, IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days.

¶17

¶18

Crl. Revision No.505 of 2012

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant after attending the marriage ceremony was returning to his village in a car owned by Ashu while his nephew Abdul Rahim was returning back alongwith Yasin on a motorcycle, which was being driven by Abdul Rahim at a moderate speed. When they reached near the culvert, a jeep bearing registration No. HR-27-3203 came from the side of village Utwar and struck with jeep. As a result of which, Abdul Rahim and Yasin sustained numerous injuries in the accident and had expired at the spot.

¶20

After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan was submitted before the Court. The accused was chargesheeted under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claim trial.

¶21

After going through the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/petitioner noticed at the outset in para 1 of this judgment. On an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned trial court, the learned appellate court affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court.

¶22

Hence, the present revision petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the order of conviction on merits, however, restricts his prayer for reduction of sentence as he has faced criminal trial for a period of 10 years as the FIR is dated 7.6.2002. The petitioner is a sole bread earner of the family.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since

¶25

offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown.

¶26

Crl. Revision No.505 of 2012

¶27

¶28

Heard.

¶29

In the accident, two young boys lost their lives. However, keeping in view the facts that the petitioner has been facing mental agony for the last ten years and is only the bread earner of the family, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if his conviction is reduced to the period already undergone. As per custody certificate, he has undergone 7 months and 13 days as on 20.3.2012. He is the first offender and is not facing any other criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld to the period already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- which shall be paid to the legal heirs of the each of the deceased and thereafter the appellant shall be released.

¶30

With the above modification, the present appeal stands

¶31

disposed of.

¶32

18.4.2012 mks

¶33

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

Ismail v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail v. State of Haryana

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

Balbir Kaur Vs Gurjit Singh & Ors.

Kavita Vs Deepak Kumar

Reliance Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushma & Ors.

K.C. Beniwal Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Vedwati Vs Dalip Kumar and Ors.

Lajwanti Vs Karanjeet Singh and Ors.