Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Motion Re in Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 31 October, 2012Matching Fragments
Learned counsel contends that at the point in time when the incident took place, the petitioner was 19 years of age. This Court may consider reduction in sentence.
Notice of motion re: quantum of sentence only, for 18.1.2012."
10. Moreover, both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence that the accident in question had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of petitioner-convict while driving the offending Tempo and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such articulated judgments, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-convict, so, the impugned judgments of conviction deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.