PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for an offence under Section 304 IPC on the allegations that on 4.6.1999 he along with Karan Singh had been taking liquor for quite some time and thereafter he pushed Karan Singh, who fell down on the road and subsequently run over by an unknown vehicle. Vide judgment and order dated 5/6.4.2002, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, convicted him for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 08 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the present appeal, which was admitted on 3.5.2002. He was, thereafter, granted the benefit of suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal vide order dated 3.9.2004.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has not challgned the conviction of the appellant. However, he has submitted that there is no material available on the record, which could indicate that when the appellant had pushed Karan Singh, who fell down on the road, some vehicle was nearby and as a result the said vehicle ran over Karan Singh, who received injuries and died as a result thereof. Further, the appellant is facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 15 years. He is not a previous convict. Out of the sentence of 08 years imposed upon him he has already undergone a period of more than 02 years and 09 months. Ever since his release on bail during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant has not misused the concession. Therefore, the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the appeallant be set aside.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that on account of the appellant pushing Karan Singh, the latter fell down on the road and, that too, during night time. The driver of the passing vehicle would not have been seen Karan Singh lying on the road and run over him and, thus, the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 304 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is commensurate with the crime committed by him. He has, however, produced the custody certificate, as per which, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 years, 09 months and 10 days in custody. During the said period, he availed parole for 04 months and 05 days. He is also not shown to be involved in any other case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant could be reduced to the period that has already been undergone by him.