After 20-Year Case And Family Settlement, P&H HC Upholds Fatal-Crash Conviction, Cuts Jail Term To 2 Months 13 Days

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in connection with an FIR registered in 2006 and sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A, with fines.

The appellate court dismissed his appeal, and he challenged that decision in revision.

During the revision, the petitioner and the deceased’s legal representatives entered into a compromise; they had no objection to reducing the sentence.

The petitioner had undergone two months and thirteen days’ actual custody.

He did not press the challenge to his conviction and sought relief only on sentence.

Section 320 CrPC does not permit compounding of an offence under Section 304-A IPC; therefore, a compromise cannot result in the offence being compounded

However, under the principle stated in Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka and another, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 501, a court may, in an appropriate case, maintain the conviction for a non-compoundable offence while reducing the sentence in view of a compromise

The sentencing authorities cited—State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar, (2008) 7 SCC 550; Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166; and Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 810—require an individualized, proportionate assessment that considers the offence, the offender’s circumstances, deterrence, and prospects of reformation and rehabilitation

The Court held that Section 304-A IPC was non-compoundable, so the compromise could not extinguish the offence or disturb the conviction.

Since the petitioner expressly did not press his challenge to conviction, the convictions under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC were affirmed.

On sentence, the Court considered the deceased’s legal representatives’ willingness to settle, the petitioner’s two months and thirteen days of actual custody, the proceedings’ duration of more than twenty years, his age and employment, and the absence of any other criminal involvement shown in the custody certificate.

Applying the cited sentencing principles, it concluded that the period already undergone adequately met the ends of justice in the particular circumstances of the case.

It reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, left the fines intact, discharged the petitioner’s bail bonds, and disposed of the revision petition accordingly.