Partly allowed

Maur Singh v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2010CRR/2079/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Govt. court reduced the stringent sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to the term the petitioner had already undergone, while retaining the fine, and directed payment of Rs.30,000 as compensation to the victim's heirs within three months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to term already undergone; fine retained; Rs.30,000 compensation payable to heirs within three months.

Maur Singh Vs State of Pb. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No.2079 of 2003 Date of Decision 14.09.2010

Maur Singh

...... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶9

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

A.N.JINDAL, J:

¶13

Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 08.09.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 10.10.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC.

¶14

The allegations against the petitioner are that on 11.04.1998, he while driving the truck bearing registration No.RJ-13G-3409 in a rash and negligent manner, struck against Gurcharan Kaur, as a result of which she received injuries and died at the spot.

¶15

He was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed.

¶16

On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was

¶17

Criminal Revision No.2079 of 2003 -2-

¶18

found which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage.

¶19

Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings in the Courts for the last 12 years. He has already undergone about five months of the substantive sentence and is ready to compensate the heirs of the deceased. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

¶20

Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. The petitioner is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Gurcharan Kaur within three months from today, failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto.

¶21

Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, for compliance.

¶22

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

¶23

14.09.2010 mamta-II

Maur Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maur Singh v. State of Pb.

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

(O&M) State of Punjab Vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Ptl

State of Punjab Vs Bachan Kaur

Ajit Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Nihal Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rohtash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

State of Punjab Vs Surjan Singh etc.