CRL.REV.P./462/2016 of SHAMIN Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.REV.P. 462/2016SHAMIN..... PetitionerThrough :Mr. Arvind Kumar, Mr. SiddharthYadavandMr.AnkitAggarwal,Advs.SHAMIN..... PetitionerThrough :Mr. Arvind Kumar, Mr. SiddharthYadavandMr.AnkitAggarwal,Advs.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

..... RespondentThrough :Mr. Sudershan Joon, APP with SIShiv Prakash PS Road.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%19.08.2016

Crl.M.A.10434/2016 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 462/2016 & Crl.M.B.1289/2016 (Suspension of Sentence)

Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 279/304-AIPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months withfine of `1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, in default SI for one month andRigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of `15,000/- and in default SIfor three months under Section 304-A IPC. Petitioner preferred appealbefore the Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed vide order dated 1[st]

June, 2016.

That is how petitioner is before this Court by way of present petitionunder Section 397 Cr.P.C.

Trial Court and Appellate Court have meticulously scrutinized theevidence on record and have arrived at finding that on 26[th]April, 2002,petitioner, while driving the bus bearing no.DL 1PA 8159 in rash andnegligent manner, knocked down the deceased who was crossing the roadnear bus stand Prahlad Pur Market resulting fatal injuries to her, to whichshe succumbed at the spot.Statement of eye witness PW-1 DevenderKumar has been found to be trustworthy and reliable. PW-1 has deposedthat he saw one lady crossing the road and the bus driven by the petitioner ata high speed knocking down the deceased.PW-1 has identified thepetitioner in Court as the same person, who was driving the bus on thefateful day. There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below renderedafter scrutinizing the evidence on record and I find the findings returned bythe trial court and confirmed by the appellate court to be plausible andpossible view.Even otherwise, during the course of hearing, learnedcounsel for the petitioner has given up the challenge to the conviction ofpetitioner on merits. He has only prayed for reduction of sentences of the

petitioner, on the ground that petitioner is aged about 52 years; he has facedagony of trial for about 14 years; he has five children besides his agedmother, who are dependent upon him. Petitioner has four daughters and oneson aged about 17 years, who is in class 11[th]. It is submitted that petitioneris the sole bread earner of the family and the whole family is at the verge ofstarvation since petitioner is in jail for more than two and half months.

Keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances, the sentence ofpetitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to six months, however,sentence under Section 279 IPC is maintained as it is. Fine has already beendeposited. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.Miscellaneousapplication is disposed of as infructuous.

AUGUST 19, 2016/dk

A.K. PATHAK, J.