Partly allowed

Tek Chand v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2012CRR/948/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged sentence under Section 304-A IPC after a 23-year trial. Court enhanced fine to Rs. One lac while reducing imprisonment to time already served, directing payment to deceased's heirs, finding this meets ends of justice under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of fine enhanced to Rs. One lac; imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; applicant to deposit fine as compensation to deceased's heirs within three months.

Tek Chand Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl.Revision No. 948 of 1999

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.Revision No. 948 of 1999 Date of decision : 27.8.2012

Tek Chand v.

State of Haryana

Petitioner

Respondent

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr. ND Achint, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neelrudra Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana

¶11

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶12

The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 3.8.1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal , vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The accusedpetitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment/order dated 22.7.1997, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, to undergo R.I for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 304-A IPC of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I for a period of two months. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- under section 279 I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I For a period of one month. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 337 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. All

¶13

Crl.Revision No. 948 of 1999 2

¶14

the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶15

In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 1.7.1989 petitioner-Tek Chand was driving Haryana Roadways Bus No. HYG-3871, coming from Panipat, in a rash and negligent manner and struck against a Vickey bearing registration No. HNL-1573, driven by Ishwar Chand. The pillion was Ram Parshad. Pillion Ram Parshad sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Ishwar Chand, complainant also received injuries. On the statement of Ishwar Chand, FIR was registered against the accusedpetitioner. Accused was arrested on 1.7.1989. He was charge sheeted under section 279/337/304-A IPC to which he pleaded no guilty and claimed trial.

¶16

After the appraisal of entire evidence produced on record, the Ld. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused vide order dated 22.7.1997. Aggrieved against the said order, he filed an appeal before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which was dismissed on 3.8.1999.

¶17

Aggrierved against the judgment/order dated 3.8.1999, the petitioner filed the instant revision, which was admitted on 27.8.1999.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the findings of the Ld. Courts below and confines his submissions to the question of quantum of sentence only. He prays that the FIR was lodged on 1.7.1989 i.e 23 years ago. Petitioner is 68 years old and is a pensioner and the sentence of fine be enhanced.

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as the offences stand proved.

¶20

From the record, it is made out that FIR was registered

¶21

¶22

Crl.Revision No. 948 of 1999

¶23

on 1.7.1989. Petitioner was the driver of Haryana Roadways bus which met with an accident and Ram Parshad lost his life. He has suffered a protracted trial for more than 23 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of 26 days. He has not misused the concession of bail.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances and particularly the protracted trial of more than 23 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, for speedy trial, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, and in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. Punishment provided for offence under section 304-A IPC is imprisonment for two years, or fine, or both. It is a fit case where the sentence of fine only will meet the ends of justice.

¶25

In view of the above, the conviction and sentenced of the petitioner under sections 279/337/304-A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is further enhanced to Rs. One lac besides the fine already imposed by the trial Court. He shall deposit this amount of fine before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount of fine of Rs. One lac shall be treated as compensation and will be paid to the dependent/legal heirs of deceased- Ram Parshad, in equal shares.

¶26

In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the abovesaid with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and

¶27

¶28

Crl.Revision No. 948 of 1999

¶29

the petitioner has to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The

¶30

impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶31

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶32

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶33

27.8.2012 MS

Tek Chand v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tek Chand 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

Parmod Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Usha Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Raghav Vs State of Haryana

Ranvir Singh Alias Jawahar Singh Varun and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab