Ram Kishan Vs. State

Ram Kishan vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 08, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701262

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/701262
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 08, 2005
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition 193/2005 and Crl. Misc. B. 654/2005
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 & 304-A -- Conviction and sentence of six months and one year respectively under each offence -- Petitioner suffered the ordeal of trial for more than ten years and already undergone sentence of eight months -- While conviction affirmed, the sentence reduced to period undergone. -

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Kishan

Advocate Om Prakash, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A
Reported In: 121(2005)DLT502; 2005(83)DRJ370

Excerpt

penal code, 1860 - sections 279 & 304-a -- conviction and sentence of six months and one year respectively under each offence -- petitioner suffered the ordeal of trial for more than ten years and already undergone sentence of eight months -- while conviction affirmed, the sentence reduced to period undergone. - r.s. sodhi, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16th november, 2004, of the learned additional sessions judge in crl.a.41/2004, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein arising out of an order of the learned metropolitan magistrate, whereby the learned magistrate has held the petitioner guilty under section 279/304a ipc and sentenced him to undergo r.i. for one year under section 304a ipc and further imprisonment for six months under section 279 ipc.2. with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state i have gone through the material on record. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. i, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. however, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already undergone nearly eight months incarceration and is now in judicial custody. he submits that the occurrence is of 1995 and the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for more than ten years. he submits that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. learned counsel for the state has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.3. having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the state, i am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. it is ordered accordingly.4. with this modification, crl.rev.p.193/2005 is disposed of. crl.misc.b.654/2005 also stands disposed of. the petitioner is in judicial custody. he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16th November, 2004, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.41/2004, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner herein arising out of an order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has held the Petitioner guilty under Section 279/304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304A IPC and further imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC.

2. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State I have gone through the material on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner has already undergone nearly eight months incarceration and is now in judicial custody. He submits that the occurrence is of 1995 and the Petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for more than ten years. He submits that the Petitioner is also not a previous convict and no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the State, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.

4. With this modification, Crl.Rev.P.193/2005 is disposed of. Crl.Misc.B.654/2005 also stands disposed of. The Petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Ram Kishan vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A

Criminal