Partly allowed

Surinder Singh v. State Ofhy.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2009CRR/1602/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision regarding rash and negligent driving convicted the petitioner to imprisonment and compensation. The High Court upheld the conviction but substituted the sentence with probationement on depositing the outstanding fine to the heirs, allowing the petitioner to continue work and support his family.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence substituted to imprison for time already undergone and deposit Rs.40,000 fine; probation granted if fine deposited within two months.

Surinder Singh Vs State Ofhy. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004 DECIDED ON : 21.05.2009.

Surinder Singh

Revisionist

VERSUS

State of Haryana.

¶9

Respondent.

¶10

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the Revisionist.

¶12

Ms. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

¶13

JORA SINGH,J.

¶14

Surinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh, through the instant revision has challenged the impugned judgment 3.8.2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

¶15

Vide the impugned judgment, appeal against the judgment/order dated 26.3.2003/27.3.2003, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, was dismissed, whereby the revisionist-accused was

¶16

¶17

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004

¶18

convicted under Sections 337 and 304-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- to each of the injured namely Bal Ram, Lal Chand and Kewal Krishan. In default of payment of compensation, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the guardian/LRs/dependents of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar. In default of payment of compensation, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 26.8.1998 complainant Bal Ram after doing his job while returning to his house was present near M/S Gupta Petrol Pump at about 8.30 P.M. then sighted one Mahindera Jeep bearing No. HR-DL-4C-9992 while coming from the side of Kaithal. Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently and was struck against the complainant, Sanjeev Kumar and Lal Chand who were in the Rickshaw. Rickshaw

¶20

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004

¶21

¶22

was also damaged. After leaving the jeep on the spot, driver had fled away from the spot. After recording the statement of Bal Ram, the same was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded.

¶23

Injured were shifted to Hospital and were got medico legally examined. Sanjeev Kumar had succumbed to his injuries. Inquest report was prepared. After post mortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. Accused was arrested.

¶24

After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

¶25

The revisionist was charged under Sections 337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶26

After charge, prosecution examined number of witnesses.

¶27

After the close of prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations. Revisionist denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the revisionist is that he was falsely implicated.

¶28

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004

¶29

¶30

Opportunity was given to lead defence, but no defence was led.

¶31

Ultimately, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pehowa, as stated above.

¶32

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, appeal was preferred, but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

¶33

I have heard Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent and have gone through the file very carefully and thoroughly.

¶34

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that occurrence is dated 26.8.1998. Revisionist is the first offender. Four kids and mother to support. Claim petition was instituted by the LRs of the deceased who was unmarried. Revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% vide award dated 29.10.2002 besides this payment Rs.35,000/- was also paid to the heirs of the deceased as per affidavit of Siya Ram. Revisionist has already undergone for about one month and seven days. So, a lenient view be taken and he be released on probation.

¶35

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004

¶36

¶37

Mr. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State argued that no doubt occurrence is dated 26.8.1998. He further argued that as per request of the learned counsel for the revisionist, when judgment of the First Appellate Court is not challenged on the point of conviction, then conviction of the revisionist should be upheld and be directed to pay fine payable to the heirs of the deceased.

¶38

Admittedly, the revisionist is the first offender. Occurrence was on 26.8.1998. Due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by the revisionist there was an accident and in the accident Bal Ram and Lal Chand received injuries. Deceased is Sanjeev Kumar. He was unmarried. As per submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist, impugned judgment on the point of conviction is upheld.

¶39

Revisionist is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. He was to support minor children and mother. Claim petition was instituted by the mother and father of the deceased. Revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% vide award dated 29.10.2002. Besides this payment of Rs.35,000/- was also made to the LRs of the deceased, to this effect affidavit of Siya Ram is on the file (Annexure

¶40

¶41

Crl. Revision No.1602 of 2004

¶42

P-2). Revisionist has undergone one month and seven days. He will become hard criminal if sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met if a lenient view is taken. Instead of sending the revisionist to undergo imprisonment, as ordered by the trial Court, he is directed to undergo imprisonment, already undergone by him and to deposit Rs.40,000/- more as fine and if the same is deposited, then the same is to be disbursed to Krishna mother and Siya Ram father of the deceased.

¶43

In case, Rs.40,000/- not deposited within two months before the trial Court, this revision would stand dismissed automatically and revisionist will have to undergo imprisonment as already ordered by the trial Court.

¶44

With this modification on the point of sentence, revision stand dismissed.

¶45

21.05.2009 Anoop

¶46

( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE

Surinder Singh v. State Ofhy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. State Ofhy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhajan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Ram Vs State of Haryana

Amar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

R.D.Dixit Vs State of Pb.

Rajinder Singh Alias Beera Vs the State of Punjab