***

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. –

1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 19.10.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, in case FIR No.202 dated 25.08.2000, under Sections 304A, 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, registered at Police Station City, Abohar, was upheld.

2. Brief facts of this case are that on 24.08.2000, a ruqa was received at the Police Station, City, Abohar from Civil Hospital, Abohar regarding admission of some injured persons in the hospital due to accident. HC Baljit – along with police party reached at Civil Hospital, but injured were declared unfit to make statement. Then on the next day i.e. 25.08.2000, HC Baljeet again visited to Civil Hospital and Ram Kumar @ Bhoop Ram accused disclosed before HC Baljeet that on 24.08.2000, when he was driving tempo bearing registration No.PB05 F9848 and reached at bye pass crossing near village Chuhriwala Dhanna then driver of truck No.PAT 3290 struck his truck against his tempo, resultantly, he as well as the passengers travelling in the tempo received injuries and one Surja Ram succumbed to the injuries and the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver. After recording the aforesaid statement of Ram Kumar @ Bhoop Ram detailed investigation was conducted. During investigation, it was found that in fact Ram Kumar @ Bhoop Ram, was driving the tempo in a rash and negligent manner, at the time of accident in question and then the FIR in the present case was registered. Upon trial, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, but the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was upheld by the said Court and appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.10.2010.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment of conviction of the petitioner is not being assailed on merits and he restricts his prayer for modification of order on quantum of sentence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the state submitted that the well reasoned judgment has been passed by both the Courts below based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

7. Since the revisionist/ petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction on merits, as such the said issues are not being gone into at this stage and it is being restricted to the issue pertaining to sentencing and quantum of punishment.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. In order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but also reformative.

10. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that there is no perversity and evidence on record has been appreciated in the right perspective, but as observed above, the counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction on substantive grounds and while limiting his plea solely to modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone.

11. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, as per which the petitioner has already undergone custody of 29 days including remission out of awarded substantive sentence of 01 year.

12. Taking into consideration the facts noticed above that it was unfortunate and purely an accidental occurrence, that the petitioner has faced the rigors of a long criminal prosecution, the accident had taken place about 26 years back, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be in the interest of justice, if sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

13. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision is disposed of in the following terms:-

“The judgment dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar are upheld with modification to the extent that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.”

14. The concerned jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case.

15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

16. Registry is directed to do the needful.

Order accordingly.

********