Judgment:
V.K. Ahuja, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the revision petition whose cognizance was taken by the Court on its own motion.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla by the respondent against the judgment of the Court of learned JMIC, Court No. III, Shimla, vide which the respondent was held guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- each. The learned Sessions Judge decided the said appeal filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. vide his judgment, dated 14.12.7006, and while disposing of the appeal, he observed that since the sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate against the respondent is grossly inadequate, a reference may be made to the High Court to consider the question of enhancing the sentence.
3. The said reference received by this Court was registered as Criminal Revision 149 of 2006 and Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, after considering the reference in detail and referring to the various provisions relating to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge as well as this Court, held that this Court should invoke and exercise the jurisdiction under Section 481 of the Cr.P.C. since these powers could be exercised by this Court only and a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the sentence be not enhanced as against, the respondent. This is how the matter is before this Court for disposal after the respondent had put in appearance in view of the show-cause notice issued to him.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
5. The main question arises for consideration to my mind is only as to whether the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court deserves to be enhanced since the question as to the validity of the conviction imposed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Sessions Court is not open since neither of the parties had filed any appeal against that order. Therefore, the question to be considered is only in regard to the sentence whether it deserves to be enhanced or not.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is a young man of the age of 28 years, who has been married recently and has got aged parents of the age of 65 years and 62 years to look after. It was further submitted that the respondent has not been previously convicted, therefore, he deserves the leniency of this Court.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that once the accused was convicted by the learned trial Court, no leniency can be taken against the accused person and no benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be taken. Thus, it was submitted that the sentence awarded was grossly inadequate in view of the decisions of the apex Court in regard to the sentences to be imposed once a person is held guilty under Section 304-A IPC.
7. To substantiate his plea, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the decision of the apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1677, which shows that it was held by their Lordships that the benefit of probation need not to be extended to persons convicted of offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving. It was further observed that the fear psyche should be kept in mind that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle, he cannot escape from jail sentence.
8. The decision of the apex Court mentioned above will clearly show that in a case the person is convicted under Section 304-A IPC, substantive sentence is required to be imposed and he cannot claim the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or escape the punishment to be imposed upon him.
9. The facts of the case show that while driving the vehicle rashly or negligently, the respondent had caused simple injuries to one Nek Ram and also caused death of Kalam Ram and, therefore, he was tried by the Court leading to his conviction. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the sentence was imposed by the learned trial Court on 24.6.2006 and the occurrence relates back to 1.10.2004, I am of the opinion that the respondent deserves to be sentenced as under:
Under Section 304-A IPC : Imprisonment for six months and a fine of
Rs. 50,000/-. Fine, if deposited, shall be
liable to be paid to the legal heirs of
the deceased Kalam Ram.
Under Section 279 IPC : Imprisonment for three months and a fine
of Rs. 1,000/-.
Under Section 337 IPC : Imprisonment for three months and a fine
of Rs. 5,000/-.
Fine, if deposited, shall be liable to be
paid to Nek Ram, injured.
10. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner has been awarded lesser sentence in view of the facts of the case and this shall not be taken as precedent by the Subordinate Court. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is modified as mentioned above. Copy of the judgment shall be sent to the learned trial Court for issuing warrant of arrest against the respondent so that he serves the sentence imposed upon him by this Court. This shall also be brought to the notice of this Court as to when the respondent is arrested and he has been sent to serve the sentence imposed upon him. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.