Finding sentence awarded to rash driver to be proportional to degree of negligence,P&H HC refuses to interfere with order of Lower Court

Read Order: Parveen v. State of Haryana 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 24,  2022: In a case of rash and negligent driving, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that the said Court already reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court from imprisonment for two years to one year term. The sentence was found by the Court to be proportional to the degree of negligence attributed to the petitioner which resulted in the loss of life of an innocent youngster. 

The Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi further said that once the petitioner was held to be rash and negligent and he did not challenge the order of conviction and the lower Appellate Court, keeping in view the degree of negligence attributed to the petitioner, already exercised its jurisdiction in reducing the sentence, no relief can be given to the petitioner in the present petition.

In this case, the Court was dealing with a revision petition filed against the order of conviction of the trial Court convicting the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC as well as the judgement of the lower Appellate Court by which the petitioner’s conviction was upheld but the sentence awarded to him was reduced from simple imprisonment for two years to simple imprisonment for one year.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but the quantum of sentence, which was awarded. The counsel further submitted that it was not a case where the petitioner should be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 

On the contrary, the State Counsel advanced a case for non-interference with the impugned order and judgement by submitting that the accident which was caused by the petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving took a life and that sufficient evidence was produced on record to prove the petitioner’s guilt. Further, he submitted that the petitioner’s plea for reduction of sentence was already accepted by the lower Appellate Court which reduced his sentence from two years to one-year imprisonment. 

After considering revival submissions, the Court observed that the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 304-A IPC was up to two years and that the lower appellate Court already considered the petitioner’s prayer by reducing the sentence of imprisonment of two years to one year term. Further, the Court observed that no ground was put forth by the petitioner’s counsel to interfere with the sentence of the lower Appellate Court. 

Thus, keeping in view the finding of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner and the resultant loss of innocent young life, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the lower Appellate Court was held valid and legal. The revision was dismissed.