Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 289 (HP)

ANIL KUMAR BHARWAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-09

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ACCUSED-petitioner Anil Kumar Bharwal has been convicted by the Courts below for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. ASSAILING the judgment dated 20.12.2003, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, in Case No.4-1-2000, titled as State versus Anil Kumar Bharwal, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, vide judgment dated 20.7.2006, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2/2004, tilted as Anil Kumar Bharwal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 8.12.1999, accused-petitioner was driving a motorcycle and while crossing the road at village Ambhera, hit complainant Shri Desh Raj (PW-3), as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries. Petitioner himself hired a rickshaw and took the injured to the hospital, where medical treatment was administered. Matter was reported to the police and FIR No.615 of 1999 (Ex. PW-6/C), dated 8.12.1999, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. MLC (Ex. PW- 1/A) was taken on record by the police during investigation and with the completion of the same, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. NOTICE of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. After trial, accused was convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each and pay fine of Rs.500/- each for having committed offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code; and also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for having committed an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week, 10 days and 20 days in relation to the aforesaid respective offences. The lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 5. AFTER having heard the matter for some time, Mr. Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly, under instructions from the petitioner, does not challenge the findings and judgment of conviction. However, considering the long time gap and the fact that the offence took place at the time when petitioner was very young and that now he has his family to support, it is urged that a lenient view be taken and instead of sending the accused behind bars, at this stage, the amount of fine be increased. It is also brought to my notice that the complainant, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act has already received adequate compensation. 6. AS already noticed, accused-petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for the charged offences, after he was given adequate opportunity of leading his defence. Noticeably, petitioner himself took the complainant to the hospital for administering medical treatment, after the occurrence of the incident. The incident took place in the year 1999. At that time, petitioner was just 23 years of age. Since then the matter is pending before various Courts. Today, petitioner is married and has his family to support and take care of. Petitioner has also maintained good conduct all along. This is his first offence and has not violated any law thereafter. 7. TAKING into consideration the overall attending circumstances and a holistic view thereof, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if at this stage the quantum of sentence is reduced and modified. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment, in relation to all the charged offences is modified and set aside, but however, with regard to each of the offences, i.e. under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the petitioner stands convicted, he shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, respectively. Petitioner, through his learned counsel, undertakes to deposit the same in the trial Court within a period of three months from today. It is clarified that if the amount is not so deposited, the original order or sentence shall remain, which the petitioner, through his counsel, undertakes to serve. Petitioner, through his learned counsel, undertakes to deposit the same in the trial Court within a period of three months from today. It is clarified that if the amount is not so deposited, the original order or sentence shall remain, which the petitioner, through his counsel, undertakes to serve. 8. DECISION to reduce the sentence, in my considered view, is in the interest of justice, parties and is expedient, considering the given facts and circumstances. Ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 385; Paul George versus State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 ; B. Nagabhushanam versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 5 SCC 730 ; Manish Jalan versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 SCC 225 ; and Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another, (2009) 1 SCC 711 , has been relied upon while taking the view in the present case. With the aforesaid observations, revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.