Gurjant Singh Alias Janta Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gurjant Singh Alias Janta Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction upheld; sentence modified in lieu of imprisonment — fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-, to be deposited with the trial Court within two months and, on realisation, paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper receipt and identification.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, as maintained by the Courts below, should be upheld. +1 more

Court's answer

The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A & 337 IPC is upheld; this Court finds no infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.

Ratio / Principle

The act was a rash and negligent act simpliciter; there was no allegation that the appellant was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving at the time of the accident, unlike driving in an inebriated condition, which is a despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter punishment.

Key takeaways

It would be harsh to send the petitioner to jail after 25 years of the occurrence; the interest of justice would be met by modifying the sentence and enhancing the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court.ratio¶14
The enhanced fine of Rs. 10,000/- is to be deposited with the trial Court within two months; on realisation, the amount is to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper receipt and identification.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Court upheld the petitioner's conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving resulting in the loss of human life, finding no infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. Observing that there was no allegation that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving at the time of the accident — the act being 'a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition', the latter being a despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter punishment — and that the occurrence took place on 03.09.2001 with the petitioner on bail throughout, the Court held it would be harsh to send him to jail after 25 years. The sentence was modified and the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-, to be deposited with the trial Court within two months and, on realisation, paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper receipt and identification.

PANKAJ KAKKAR

2026.07.15 14:23

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.15 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.15 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

3

In the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of offences

In the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code for driving rashly and negligently and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of the precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance imparing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harasher punishment.

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.15 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

4

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.15 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

5

The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code and this Court has also gone through the judgments of the Courts below and does not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld. The occurrence took place on 03.09.2001 and the petitioner throughout been on bail. This Court is of the view that it would be rather harash to send the petitioner to jail after 25 years of the occurrence. The interest of justice would be met if the petitioner’s sentence is modified and fine as imposed by learned Trial Court be enhanced.

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.15 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

6

subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. On realisation, the amount shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper receipt and identification.

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.15 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

7