The High Court upholds that, in cases involving conviction under Section 304-A IPC, substantive sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone considering factors such as the age of the accused, prolonged litigation, and good conduct. This approach follows Supreme Court precedent (Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022) and serves as binding authority within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
| Case Name | CRR/1887/2008 of DHARAMPAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
|---|---|
| CNR | PHHC010922952008 |
| Date of Registration | 18-09-2008 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022 (1) SCC 161) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Sentencing under Section 304-A IPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether, given prolonged trial, old age, and good conduct, sentence under Section 304-A IPC can be reduced to period already undergone. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022 (1) SCC 161 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Prolonged criminal proceedings and advanced age of the accused were key considerations, along with clear antecedents and good conduct. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC for a 1999 accident resulting in death, facing over two decades of trial. He had already undergone more than three months in custody, was 85 years old, and had no other criminal case against him. |
| Citations | Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022 (1) SCC 161 |
Practical Impact
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
|---|---|
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and similar cases nationwide |
| Follows | Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022 (1) SCC 161 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that substantive sentence under Section 304-A IPC can be reduced to period already undergone based on factors such as old age, prolonged trial, and clean antecedents.
- Follows the Supreme Court’s logic in Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa (2022), giving clear authority for seeking similar relief in appropriate cases.
- Enhanced fine imposed as a condition for reduction of substantive sentence.
- Specified that benefit of sentence reduction is available only upon payment of enhanced fine; otherwise, the original sentence will be served.
- Directs that enhanced fine should be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper identification.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by expressly declining to review the conviction on merits, focusing solely on the quantum of sentence.
- Considered the incident’s age (over 25 years), the petitioner’s advanced age (85 years), and the fact that he had no other criminal involvement before or after the event.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, which allows reduction of sentence in analogous situations.
- Recognized that the petitioner had already undergone over three months of actual imprisonment.
- Held that in the totality of circumstances justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, while enhancing the fine.
- Enhanced the fine under Section 304-A IPC to ₹15,000 and made timely payment a strict condition for availing the benefit of sentence reduction.
- Directed that the fine be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased after proper verification.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Did not challenge the conviction on merits.
- Sought reduction of sentence on grounds of prolonged criminal proceedings spanning more than two decades.
- Cited age (85 years), good conduct, and absence of other criminal cases.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedent (Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022) to seek reduction of sentence to period undergone.
State
- Opposed reduction of sentence, citing gravity of offence and findings of guilt by courts below.
- Emphasized no justification for further leniency.
- Conceded that petitioner had maintained good conduct and had no involvement in criminal activity since 1999.
Factual Background
The case concerned a road accident that occurred in 1999, leading to prosecution under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court and his conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal. By the time the High Court heard the revision in 2025, more than 25 years had elapsed. The petitioner, 85 years old, had already served over three months’ incarceration and had a clean criminal record both before and after the incident.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Section 304-A IPC, dealing with causing death by negligence.
- Followed an expansive interpretation consistent with Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa (2022), allowing reduction of substantive sentence based on overall circumstances including the nature of proceedings, time elapsed, age, and fine enhancement.
- No “reading down” or “reading in” occurred; rather, the court applied Supreme Court precedent in sentencing.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court required that the benefit of sentence reduction would accrue only upon deposit of enhanced fine.
- Mandated that the fine should be distributed to the deceased’s legal representatives after due identification.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established Supreme Court precedent (Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022 (1) SCC 161).
Citations
- Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022 (1) SCC 161