The High Court dismissed the criminal revision maintaining the conviction for rash driving causing death. The imprisonment sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and substantial compensation was ordered.
Sentence reduced to time already undergone; Rs.75,000 compensation ordered; conviction maintained.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1203 of 2002 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010
Balwant Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2000, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for both the offences. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr on 22.5.2002 by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year under
Criminal Revision No.1203 of 2002 -2-
Section 304-A IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
According to the prosecution, on 21.7.1997, Jagmohan Singh and Gurdip Singh were going on their Bajaj Chetak scooter from Nawanshahr to Urapur. It was being driven by Joginder Singh. They were following the scooter driven by Kulwant Singh, whose wife was sitting on its pillion seat, whereas their son Gurinder Singh was standing in front of him. When Kulwant Singh reached near bus stand, Bohara, the accused appeared on the scene while driving jeep No. PB-08-H8995 in a rash and negligent manner. He brought the same on the wrong side of the road and struck it against the scooter of Kulwant Singh, as a result of which, Kulwant Singh, his wife Jasbir Kaur and their son Gurinder Singh received injuries. After causing the accident, the accused fled away from the scene after leaving the jeep there. All the injured were rushed to Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr where Gurinder Singh was declared dead. Kulwant Singh was removed to C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana but he also died on the way. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by Joginder Singh.
During the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared its rough site plan, took into possession the ill-fated scooter and the offending jeep. He also arrested the accused and after completing the investigation presented the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Revision No.1203 of 2002 -3-
The trial Court charged the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Jagmohan Singh, PW2 Gurdip Singh, PW3 Jasbir Kaur, PW4 HC Phool Rai, PW5 Baldev Singh, Mechanic, PW6 Dr. Amarjit Kaur, PW7 Mohan Singh, PW8 Jaswant Kaur, PW9 Balwant Singh and PW10 ASI Kulwinder Singh.
The petitioner had pleaded innocence when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he did not bring any evidence in defence.
The Courts below accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
From the testimonies of PW1 Jagmohan Singh, PW2 Gurdip Singh and PW3 Jasbir Kaur, it stands established that it was the petitioner who was driving the jeep at the relevant time when it struck against the scooter driven by Kulwant Singh, since deceased. As a result of the accident, all the three occupants of the scooter, namely, Kulwant Singh, his wife Jasbir Kaur and their son Gurinder Singh received
Criminal Revision No.1203 of 2002 -4-
injuries. Out of them, Gurinder Singh and Kulwant Singh succumbed to their injuries. The offending vehicle was recovered from the spot. During its search, the driving licence in the name of the petitioner was recovered. The photographs taken at the spot depict the manner in which the accident had taken place. Right side of the engine cover of the jeep had hit against the scooter. It is also mentioned by PW5 Baldev Singh, who had mechanically examined the offending jeep, in his report Ex.PW5/B that there was dent on the right portion of the engine cover.
In view of the above, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC is well merited.
The accident in question had taken place on 21.7.1997. Ever since then the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. When the petitioner was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he was a first offender. Keeping in view the fact that on account of the accident caused by the petitioner, two persons had lost their lives, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on probation. As per the custody certificate produced today by the State counsel in the Court itself, the petitioner has already undergone a period of one month and four days in jail. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner, once again, behind the bars to serve the remaining sentence. On the other hand, ends of justice would be best met by reducing the sentence of
Criminal Revision No.1203 of 2002 -5-
imprisonment to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay adequate amount of compensation.
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause, is also maintained. However, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- with the trial Court as compensation within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the Courts below. On the deposit of the aforementioned amount, the trial Court shall disburse the same to Smt. Jasbir Kaur, widow of Kulwant Singh deceased and mother of Gurinder Singh deceased.
Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(T.P.S.MANN) February 17, 2010 JUDGE satish
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balwant Singh
State of Punjab
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
