Allowed

Darbara Singh v. State Ofpb.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2009CRR/793/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. While upholding the conviction based on eyewitness identification, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone considering the petitioner had served substantial time.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed but sentence reduced to the period already undergone of seven months and few days.

Darbara Singh Vs State Ofpb. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2002 Date of decision : 21-05-2009

¶3

Darbara Singh son of Gurbax Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶8

Present : Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Ambika Luthra, A.A.G., Punjab for the State.

¶10

¶11

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

¶12

The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 10-01-2002 vide which the appeal against the judgment dated 02-08-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/under Section 304-A I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, was dismissed.

¶13

The brief facts of the prosecution are that Ramesh Kumar, complainant made a statement to the A.S.I. Pritpal Singh that on February 24, 1996, they had gone to Dera Beas (Radha Soami) on a truck bearing

¶14

Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2002

¶15

-2-

¶16

No.PUG 9676. On February 25, 1996, they were returning from Dera. When they reached near Village Jeonke near Harike, the truck broke down. He parked the truck on the left side of the road and was trying to repair it by opening the bonnet of the engine. Gajan Singh, an employee of Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot was standing on the front side of the truck. A bus bearing No PB 13D 9098, which was being driven rashly and negligently with a high speed which belong to Sehna Transport, came from behind and hit the truck. The truck moved forward and ran over Gajjan Singh who died at the spot. On the basis of the above said statement, the proceedings were initiated.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner as the identification of the petitioner has not been established by the prosecution witness. When the statement of Dev Raj (PW-1) was recorded, he admitted that he did not give the description of the petitioner. Similarly, Prem Kumar (PW-2), the other eye witness admitted in his cross-examination that when the accident took place, it was dark and the bus driver ran away from the place of occurrence. As such, none of the eye witnesses identified the petitioner.

¶18

However, there is no ground to interfere with the judgments passed by the Courts below. The prosecution has examined the eyewitness Dev Raj (PW-1). He identified Darbara Singh, accused, present in the Court. Other eye-witnesses, who were travelling in the same truck, supported the prosecution case and identified the accused. Prem Kumar (PW-2) identified the accused, present in the Court. They were all

¶19

Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2002 -3-

¶20

travelling in the same truck. It is proved by the prosecution that Gajjan Singh was got crushed under the front tyre of the truck. In view of the same, no fault can be found with the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.

¶21

However, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Darbara Singh has already undergone seven months and few days, out of one year. His conviction is under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. The incident relates to the year 1996. He was granted bail on 12-072002 after having undergone a substantial period of seven months and few days of the total sentence of one year awarded. It would be unfair to send him back to jail after seven years, whereas, he has already undergone a substantial period besides he has suffered on account of the prolonged litigation, right from the year 1996, onwards.

¶22

Taking into account the offence, the facts of the case and the substantial period of sentence already having undergone, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence to the period as `already undergone.'

¶23

With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, as awarded by the trial Court to the period `as undergone,' the present Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶24

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶25

21-05-2009 gurpreet

¶26

Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No

Darbara Singh v. State Ofpb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darbara Singh v. State Ofpb.

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

Dharambir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Bhagwan Das Vs Prem Chand

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rattan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Mohan Lal Vs Nagar Panchayat Shahkot

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sanjida and Ors.