In a criminal revision regarding an accident death conviction, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, directing compensation payment and release.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 35,000 compensation to legal heirs before release.
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.
Crl.Revn. No. 1668 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revn. No. 1668 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.09.2012
Harmander Singh
......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
This Criminal Revision is directed against order dated 11.05.2012 whereby the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhatinda.
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 15.02.2012 as under:-
| Under Section | Period of Sentence |
|---|---|
| 279 IPC | To undergo simple imprisonment |
| for theperiod of three months. | |
| Under Section 304-A IPC | To undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year and fine |
| of Rs. 1,000/- in default thereof to | |
| undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
-2-
Crl.Revn. No. 1668 of 2012 (O&M)
The facts are that on 26.01.2006, the complainant and his son Gurtej Singh and grand daughter Ramandeep Kaur daughter of Gurtej Singh came to Bathinda on Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL-1CC-3715 to see his daughter Aaspreet Kaur, who is married at Bathinda and when they were returning to their village, his son Gurtej Singh was driving the Maruti Car. Ramandeep Kaur was sitting on the rear seat. At about 1:30 p.m. when they reached at bye-pass Goniana Mandi and turned towards Bajakhana Road, a bus bearing NO. PB-03F-7465 came from the side of Bajakhana being driven by its driver at high speed. Son of the complainant tried to save his car and took it on the Katcha passage but the driver of the bus by driving the same at high speed and neligent manner hit the bus in his car from the driver side and dragged it for some distance. They raised alarm then the people from the nearby place and his son-in-law Rajinder Singh who was following them on his own car, took them out of the car and then admitted them in Civil Hospital, Goniana where they were referred to Aadesh Hospital, Bhucho Mandi.
Prosecution examined P.W. to P.W. 6 and thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed by order.
Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and entire incriminating evidence appearing against him
Crl.Revn. No. 1668 of 2012 (O&M)
-3-
was put to him, who denied the same and pleaded his false implication. However, the accused has led no evidence in his defence.
After going through the evidence led, the trial court had come to a conclusion that the petitioner drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner, which led to the accident in which Gurtej Singh died. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and lower appellate court affirmed the findings given by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction but prays that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him as as he is facing trial for the last 06 years and as per custody certificate he has already undergone 4 ½ months . The petitioner is only bread earner of his family and is a first time offender.
The judgment passed by both the Courts below do not require any interference and they are upheld. However, a lenient view is taken on the quantum of sentence of the petitioner.
Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial for almost 06 years since the date of registration of the FIR on 27.01.2006. It is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Crl.Revn. No. 1668 of 2012 (O&M) -4-
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is upheld but the sentence of the imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit ` 35,000/- as compensation, which shall be paid to legal heirs of the deceased and thereafter, he shall be released subject to the satisfaction of CJM/ Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.
With the above modification/direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
September 20, 2012 Atul
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence of imprisonment given to the convicted petitioner should be reduced to the period already undergone given the protracted trial duration.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Harmander Singh
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
