( 1 ) smcrirev2.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SUO-MOTU CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2004 The Registrar, High Court, Bombay .. Applicant Bench at Aurangabad. Versus Sunil s/o. Tukaram Piwal .. Respondent Mrs. C.E. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent. WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2004 Sunil s/o. Tukaram Piwal .. Applicant Age. 30 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Aadul, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. Devidas s/o. Raoji Rathod Age. 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Ghardon Tanda, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad. Mrs. C.E. Gaikwad, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 15.12.2010 ( 2 ) smcrirev2.04 P.C. :- 1. The suo-motu revision application was entertained by the Court on short question pertaining to the substantive sentence awarded to accused Sunil Piwal and Criminal Revision Application No. 237 of 2004 is filed by the accused for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 03.06.2004. 2. Accused Sunil was convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002. The appeal came to be dismissed. 3. The learned advocate for the accused - Sunil would submit that he has already undergone substantive sentence and has been released from the prison. She makes statement that accused - Sunil has suffered the sentence in all respect. 4. The incident giving rise to the prosecution did ( 3 ) smcrirev2.04 occur on 13th February, 2002, on Aurangabad-Beed road. The accused was then driving jeep vehicle No. MH 20 F 8035. It was alleged that while driving the jeep vehicle from proximity of weekly bazar in the outskirts of village Chittepimpalgaon, the accused negligently and rashly driven the vehicle which resulted into the death of Ambadas Rathod. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the accused was rash and negligent while driving the jeep vehicle on the road. 5. The offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is one of the exceptions to other general provisions under the Indian Penal Code, which does not require mens-rea as such. The accused Sunil Piwal had no intention to cause death is explicit from the record. What appears from the judgment of both the Courts that he had lost control over the jeep vehicle while driving the same from near proximity of place of weekly bazar which was thronged with people and cattles. 6. The view taken by the learned Trial Judge and the ( 4 ) smcrirev2.04 Sessions Judge cannot be regarded as perverse. The sentence cannot be regarded as totally disproportionate to the nature of the offence. 7. Much water has flown from under the bridge after the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was rendered. After nearly nine years, it is improper to reconsider the quantum of sentence, particularly, after the substantive sentence is served by the accused. I mean to say that there are no strong reasons to direct re-arrest of the accused and put him behind the bars by awarding more substantive sentence. 8. In Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A.P. (AIR, 2002 S.C. 3270), the Apex Court was pleased to reduce the sentence which was already undergone by the accused, in view of the peculiar fact situation. In para 8 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under :- “8 ........................ The High Court, in our opinion, was right and justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC. We find no ( 5 ) smcrirev2.04 good reason to interfere with the same. However, we think it just and appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and order accordingly having regard to the fact that both the appellants were in imprisonment for about two months; the incident took place on 9-3-1988; the appellant No.2 is the mother of the appellant No.1 and she is aged 60 years; both the appellants are on bail and it may not be appropriate to send them to jail again. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The bail bonds stand cancelled.” 9. It would be too harsh to enhance the substantive sentence at such a belated stage. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the awarding of sentence is within the judicial discretion of the Trial Court and unless there is sheer perversity committed in the exercise of such discretion, ordinarily, it would be improper to interfere in the exercise of such judicial discretion. There cannot be doubt about the sentencing policy which requires awarding of appropriate sentence which is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, the social evil and other attending circumstances. The sentence awarded to the accused is legal and proper and now it would be difficult to interfere with the discretionary exercise of the power to award such sentence, as done by the Trial Court and the First ( 6 ) smcrirev2.04 Appellate Court. 10. Considering the foregoing reasons, the Suo-motu Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 2004 and Criminal Revision Application No. 237 of 2004 filed by the accused stand dismissed. 11. Rule discharged. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/smcrirev2.04