1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) against the judgment dated 27.5.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.2AR/10 of 2007/2008, vide which the appeal of the accused against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P; passed in Criminal Case No.230-2 of 2005 dated 31.8.2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been partly allowed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR No.120 of 2005 had been lodged on 7.10.2005 at Police Station Jeori. The accused at about 7:30 p.m, at place Jeori, while reversing his vehicle i.e. Tata Mobile had struck one lady, namely, Smt. Yashoda. The complaint in this respect was made by Shri Bhagwan Dass, who had appeared during the trial as PW-3. Based on the complaint so filed, FIR bearing No.120 of 2005 was registered.

3. In furtherance of the aforesaid FIR, an appropriate investigation was conducted. During investigation site plan was prepared, photographs were clicked, vehicle was got mechanically examined and the victim was also got medically examined. Other than the aforesaid, statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C were recorded. Post conclusion of the investigation, an appropriate challan was presented before the learned trial Court. In pursuance to the challan so filed, charge was framed to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, which included the victim, complainant, independent witnesses, Investigating Officer and the relevant documents were got exhibited. All incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C.

4. On considering the statement so adduced during investigation and the material evidence placed on record, both the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the lack of care and caution on the part of the accused while driving the vehicle in question. The accused had struck a lady, namely, Smt. Yashoda. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused vide judgment dated 31.8.2007 and vide a separate order of the said date, sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused was to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Besides the aforesaid, the learned trial Court further convicted the accused for a period of six months and fined the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. Herein it was made clear that in case the default of payment of fine, the accused would have to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Other than the aforesaid, the accused was convicted for simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. In default of payment of fine, it was made clear that the accused would have to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Last but not the least, the accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a period of one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Herein again it was made clear that in case the fine is not deposited the accused would have further to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. In the order of imposing the sentence, it was made clear that all the sentences were to run concurrently.

5. The plea for grant under the Probation of Offenders Act was rejected in order dated 31.8.2007, whereby the accused had been convicted by the learned trial Court.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar. The same was decided on 27.5.2009. As was already stated (supra), the learned First Appellate Court considering the entire material available on record had come to the conclusion that while reversing the vehicle in question the accused had shown lack of care and caution as a consequence of which, a lady, namely, Smt. Yashoda had been injured. Other than the aforesaid, the learned First Appellate Court was of the considered view that there was no occasion for the injured-Smt. Yashoda to have falsely implicated the accused in the case at hand. The learned First Appellate Court had upheld the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. However, qua the guilt of the accused under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned First Appellate Court was of the view that the findings recorded in this respect by the learned trial Court were not sustainable, therefore, the conviction and sentence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been set aside.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case carefully.

8. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the learned trial Court had passed the judgment and conviction of sentence on 31.8.2007. On the very same day, the operation of sentence had been suspended vide a separate order passed on 31.8.2007. In pursuance thereof, the accused had furnished the personal and surety bonds before the learned trial Court.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby the judgment and order of sentence of conviction in so far as Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC are concerned has been upheld on 27.5.2009, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition. Vide order dated 7.8.2009, the sentence imposed had been suspended by this Court, subject to the accused’s furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- in the like amount and also to deposit the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court.

10. Since the accused had not complied with the aforesaid order, an application had been filed seeking extension of time for furnishing personal and surety bonds. The said prayer had been made after the expiry of time granted vide order dated 7.8.2009. The said prayer was made on 5.10.2009 much after the time granted vide order dated 7.8.2009 had elapsed. It would be pertinent to mention here that the time granted on 7.8.2009 had elapsed on 7.9.2009.

11. In the aforesaid attending facts and circumstances of the case, no further time was accorded to the accused to furnish personal and surety bonds. The accused vide order dated 22.10.2009 was ordered to surrender before the learned trial Court and apply for bail. In pursuance to the said order dated 22.10.2009 passed by this Court, the accused had surrendered before the learned trial Court on 31.12.2009.

12. On the said date, vide detailed order, the bail application moved by the accused was dismissed and the accused was ordered to be remanded in judicial custody till 13.1.2010. Thereafter vide order dated 7.1.2010 passed by this Court in the present revision petition time to furnish the personal and surety bonds was extended by two weeks. Thereafter, the accused was released on bail.

13. During the course of hearing on 25.7.2023, report of Probation Officer was called for. The same has been placed on record. From a perusal of character and antecedents report filed by the concerned Probation Officer, it is evident that the petitioner enjoys a good reputation in his locality and he has not indulged in any anti-social activity.

14. Based on the aforesaid the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that taking into account the fact that the accused has undergone a few days of imprisonment, the incident happened in October, 2005 and nearly 18 ½ years of period has elapsed since then. During this period, the accused has suffered the trauma of trial, imprisonment, appeal, revision, hence the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Besides, looking into the character and antecedents report filed by the concerned Probation Officer it is evident that the accused is aged about 67 years. He has a wife, who is 61 years of age. Other than his wife, he has three sons, who are 37, 36 and 34 years of age respectively. As per the status report, he enjoys the good reputation amongst his neighbourers/locality. There is no report qua the accused indulging in anti-social activity.

15. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner these circumstances as pointed out by the Probation Officer in his report further buttress the submissions made hereinabove for reduction of sentence.

16. To support his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed a reliance upon the below mentioned judgments:-

In Linder Frank Wolfgang vs. Yogesh D. Shah and another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 22, [LQ/SC/2001/2030] the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.

17. The Supreme Court in C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567, [LQ/SC/2010/900] considering the 9 years prolonged period of trial, has reduced the sentence of the accused to already undergone (Para-97).

18. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Siyaram and another reported in (2010) 15 SCC 94, [LQ/SC/2010/791] considering the fact that the prosecution had been initiated in the year 1988, sentence reduced by the High Court to that already undergone was not interfered by the Supreme Court.

19. In Bharwad Navghanbhai Jakshibhai and others vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2016) 9 SCC 346, considering the length of time of nine years gone by in facing the proceedings, sentence, enhanced by the High Court, was reduced to the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

20. On a perusal of the entire judgment and record of the learned trial Court, I find no illegality and infirmity in the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. The conviction of the accused is affirmed.

21. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and prolonged trauma suffered by appellants for about 18 ½ years and taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements as well as State of Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal and another reported in (2018) 18 SCC 535 [LQ/SC/2018/936] ; and Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 15 SCC 635, [LQ/SC/2009/1736] wherein principles and factors governing imposition of punishment have been reiterated, I am of considered view that it is a fit case, where the accused deserves reduction in sentence imposed upon him. Accordingly, sentence imposed upon appellants is reduced to a period of detention already undergone during trial but with enhancement of fine to the tune of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2500/- already imposed. It has been informed that Rs.2500/- has already been deposited by the accused, therefore, he shall deposit balance amount of fine i.e. Rs.12,500/- before the learned trial Court on or before 30th May, 2024. In case of failure to deposit the fine amount, the learned trial Court shall take appropriate action in accordance with law to recover the same. Record be sent back forthwith.

22. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence part of the judgment, the instant criminal revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.