In a criminal revision, the High Court modified the sentence of the petitioner-convict, allowing him to serve the remainder of the term after completing the time already undergone, while directing payment of compensation to the deceased's heirs.
Sentence modified to undergo balance after completed term; payment of Rs.50,000 compensation directed.
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.2286 of 2003 Date of Decision 17.09.2010
Pal Singh
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
A.N.JINDAL, J:
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.11.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 26.03.2002, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 427 IPC.
Allegations against the petitioner are that he while driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-13/D-9362 rashly and negligently, struck against the Maruti Car and caused injuries to Harwinder Singh and Amit Kumar whereas Rahul Kaushal died at the spot.
He was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed.
Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence.
Criminal Revision No.2286 of 2003
-2-
Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, no such i llegality much less irregularity was found or pointed out which may render the judgment as illegal. The trial Court appears to have appreciated the evidence, led by the prosecution, in the right perspective, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage.
Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings in the Courts since then. He has already undergone 3½ 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.
Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased Rahul Kaushal within three months from today, failing which, he would serve remaining part of sentence.
Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for compliance.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
17.09.2010 mamta-II
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of sentence passed on the petitioner-accused should be modified.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the legal expenses.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Pal Singh
State of Punjab
A.N.JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
