CRR No.740 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.740 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2011 Jasbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the commission of offence under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.700/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 29.10.2009. In appeal filed by the accused/revisionist, order on quantum of sentence passed by learned trial Court was modified. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months instead of CRR No.740 of 2011 (O&M) -2- one year under Section 304-A IPC. Rest of the sentence was affirmed by learned Appellate Court/Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment dated 19.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 279/304-A IPC. Learned counsel has argued that this Court may enhance the compensation/fine and may consider to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner agrees to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation over and above the compensation paid under the Motor Vehicles Act to the LRs of the deceased. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. He further submits that the petitioner/accused has already undergone about one month 24 days. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, in paragraph No.7 observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in CRR No.740 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185, by taking note of a fact that accident had occurred 20 years earlier, ordered that the convict be released on probation. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals; he has already faced mental agony; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and enhancing the fine/compensation to be paid to the LRs of the deceased seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. However, fine/compensation imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court and over and above any compensation paid under Motor Vehicles Act, to be paid to the LRs of the deceased by the learned Trial Court under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made CRR No.740 of 2011 (O&M) -4- clear that in case enhanced amount of compensation is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge May 13, 2011 R.S.