CRR-940-2008 (O&M) 1 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-940-2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.07.2026 Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC). Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. *** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 11.07.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri and judgment dated 09.05.2008 dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 304-A/279 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for a further period of 7 days and under Section 304-A IPC for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for a further period of 14 days. 2. The facts, in brief, as per prosecution are that on 04.12.1998, Vijay Kumar son of Babu Lal, who was an auto mechanic by profession, at around 06.30 PM, was driving an Ambassador car bearing registration No.DL- 2CA-9409 in a rash and negligent manner on Chiriya Road and struck into the stationary scooter bearing registration No.HR-19-A-0571 from behind on VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-940-2008 (O&M) 2 which deceased-Jagdish was sitting while the complainant, Vijay Singh was urinating nearby. After the incident, accused-Vijay Kumar fled from the scene, leaving the offending vehicle behind. Consequently, FIR No.325 dated 05.12.1998 was registered at Police Station Sadar Sadar, Dadri under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 03 months and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 07.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. There was delay of one day in registering the FIR and prosecution examined 06 witnesses and closed its evidence. The petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the allegations and submitted that he was innocent. After VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-940-2008 (O&M) 3 perusing the record, this Court finds that no defence was produced by the petitioner and there is unexplained delay of one day in registration of the case. 7. The perusal of the judgment reveals that as per the complaint Ex.P-1, PW-1/complainant, who was an eye witness had not seen driver of the offending car at the time of accident and on an enquiry he came to know that accused was the culprit as he already knew him, who was a car mechanic and complainant used to get repaired his car from the accused. Moreover, complainant admitted during cross-examination that it was dark at the time of the accident and he could not identify any person on the spot, that came to know about the accused only later. He also gave conflicting dates regarding the accident during his statement as he mentioned the year as 1997 instead of 1998. 8. Apart from the above, the prosecution’s case was based only on the statement of complainant and no independent public witness from the locality was joined or examined to corroborate the incident. Further, the statement of single identifying witness-PW-1 Vijay was recorded and no Test Identification Parade was conducted which was mandatory, after the arrest of the accused and identifying the petitioner in the Court after two years holds no legal value. 9. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 1998 and the petitioner who is aged about 48 years has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 28 years. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of the precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-940-2008 (O&M) 4 there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance imparing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harasher punishment. 11. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 07.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 03 months of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 12. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-940-2008 (O&M) 5 of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. 14. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and this Court has also gone through the judgments of the Courts below and does not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld. The occurrence took place on 04.12.1998 and the petitioner throughout been on VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-940-2008 (O&M) 6 bail. This Court is of the view that it would be rather harash to send the petitioner to jail after 28 years of the occurrence. The interest of justice would be met if the petitioner’s sentence is modified and fine as imposed by learned Trial Court be enhanced. 15. Given the above discussion and without opining on the merits of the case, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. On realisation, the amount shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper receipt and identification. 16. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged. 17. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. 18. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 10.07.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment