Full Text
CRL.REV.P. 292/2008
I3RAHAM PARKASH Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.N. Verma, Adv.
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State.
16.09.2011 By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting him for offences under Section
279/304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine in addition to compensation and also the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appeal against
. the said
ORDER
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contends that he would not press the present revision petition on merits but only to the extent of sentence awarded by the Learned Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate
Court. It is stated that despite having been awarded the sentence
CRL.REV.P. 29212008 2011:DHC:19638 of imprisonment for a period of one year, the Petitioner was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the legal heirs of the victim. It is stated that in a case where the Petitioner has provided adequate compensation to the victims, lenient view ought to have been taken and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months is too harsh.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, the payment of compensation is akin to a mutually satisfactory disposition having been arrived at between the parties. In the present case the parents of the victim have appeared before this Court and accepted the money. In view of an adequate compensation having been awarded, as in the case of plea bargaining the Learned Trial Court ought to have given 114th of the sentence prescribed which could have been the maximum in the circumstances of the case. Further consideration ought to have been given to mitigating factor like the Petitioner being the first-time offender, he being the sole bread earner of his family who has to look after his aged parents, three daughters and two sons. Considering all these factors it would thus have been appropriate to grant relief now being sought by the Petitioner that he should be released on the period already undergone i.e. almost 4 months as per the nominal roll. CRL.REV.P. 29212008 page 2 of[3] CY\ ly~1 This Court in Ranbir Singh Vs. State (CRL.M C. 170512011 decided on th September, 2011) has held that in cases where mutually satisfactory disposition has been arrived at, even then mitigating factors should be considered while awarding the maximum sentence which is possible i.e. 114th of the sentence prescribed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition is disposed of by modifying the sentence of the Petitioner to the period already undergone and compensation and fine which have already been paid by the Petitioner. Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 'ga'