The High Court affirmed the conviction under sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC but exercised leniency by reducing the sentence for the offence under section 304-A IPC from two years to one year.
Sentence under Section 304-A IPC reduced to one year; remaining sentences unaltered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Criminal Revision No.1958 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1958 of 2002 Date of decision 24.02.2009
Gajraj Singh
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. JINDAL.
Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana.
A. N. JINDAL, J
The challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment dated 19.9.2002 passed by Mr. V. S. Malik, Sessions Judge, Narnaul dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.7.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mahendergarh, convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months for the offence under Section 279 IPC, three months under Section 337 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 304-A IPC.
Brief facts as unfolded by prosecution culminating into the trial are that on 27.9.1992, Chhaju Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of the Village Bhurjat was sitting in the verandah of his house which was under tenancy of the bank whereas his grand daughter Susal aged about 10 years and Rambhool son of DharamPal aged about 14 years were sitting at the gate of the said house. At about 1:30 PM he came across Beer Singh, Sarpanch with whom he started talking in the
Criminal Revision No.1958 of 2002 -2-
street, In the meantime, the petitioner while driving the motorised cart rashly and negligently came from the Northern side and struck the same in the gate where the children were sitting. Resultantly, the gate fell down injuring to Susal and Rambhool. After causing the accident, the petitioner fled away. The complainant alongwith his son arranged a tractor and shifted the children to the hospital. On the statement of the complainant, the case was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mahendergarh. Ultimately Rambhool had succumbed to his injuries. Resultantly, postmortem on his dead body was conducted by Dr. S. C. Gupta at Civil Hospital. The accused was arrested on 28.9.1992 on completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed against him.
The petitioner was charged under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 and 304-A IPC to which he denied and opt to contest. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses during the course of trial.
During his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication.
The trial Court convicted the petitioner. The appeal preferred by him also failed.
Heard.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the conviction recorded by both the Courts below. However, he has pleaded for extending some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Having deliberated over the matter, it may be observed that both the Courts below had returned the concurrent findings of the fact that on account of rash and negligent act of the petitioner, Rambhool had died and Susal had suffered injuries. The
Criminal Revision No.1958 of 2002 -3-
ocular version is consistent with the medical evidence. No flaw has been pointed out or detected suggesting improbability in the prosecution version. As such the impugned judgment stands affirmed. However, keeping in view the longevity of the proceedings some leniency could be shown in the quantum of sentence.
Accordingly, the criminal revision is hereby dismissed with the modification that the sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to one year without alteration in the sentence for the remaining offences.
Copy of the judgment is sent to CJM Narnaul for compliance.
( A. N. JINDAL ) JUDGE
24.02.2009 A.Kaundal
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leniency should be shown in the quantum of sentence given the longevity of the proceedings.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Gajraj Singh
State of Haryana
A. N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
