Partly allowed

Lachhman Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2026CRR/2391/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent convictions under Sections 279/337/338 IPC for a head-on collision caused by rash tanker driving. The High Court maintained the conviction but, citing prolonged 23-year proceedings, clean record and first-offender status, reduced the sentence to time already undergone on deposit of an enhanced fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000 within two months; bail bonds discharged.

Lachhman Singh Vs State of Punjab — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

CRR-2391-2008

215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRR-2391-2008 Date of decision : 09.07.2026

Lachhman Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

¶11

Present: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conference).

¶12

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

¶14

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed to assail the judgment dated 04.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby the conviction recorded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.

¶16

The trial Court awarded rigorous imprisonment (for short RI) under Section 279 IPC for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I for a further period of 15 days, under Section 337 IPC, R.I for a period of three months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I for a further period of 15 days and under Section 338 IPC R.I for a period of six months with fine of Rs.1000/and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I for a further period of one

¶17

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶18

CRR-2391-2008

¶19

¶20

month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶21

The facts, in brief, are that on 24.06.2003 an information regarding admission of Amandeep Singh and Jatinder Singh in Rajindra Hospital Patiala with the accidental injuries was received at Police Station Bhawanigarh. On 27.06.2003, statement of complainant/injured-Amandeep Singh was recorded, wherein it was stated that he was employed with Pack Engineering Factory, Patiala. On 24.06.2003, he along with his co-worker, namely, Jatinder Singh, was going from Patiala to the unit of Pepsi at village Channo for fitting the gas cylinder in car bearing registration No.HR-20-D9689 and car was being driven by Jatinder Singh. At about 10.15 AM, when they were one kilometer far from the Village Channo, they saw that a tractor trolley was coming from the opposite side and one tanker (bearing No.PB-12C1222) was trying to over take the said tractor trolley. The tanker was driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided head-on with the Maruti Car, causing extensive damage to the car and multiple injuries to both occupants, who were subsequently got unconscious. The driver of the tanker fled away after leaving the tanker on the spot. Passersby admitted both injured individuals to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. On the basis of the statement of the complainant/Amandeep Singh, the FIR No. 124 dated 27.06.2003 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC at Police Station Bhawanigarh.

¶22

A trial was proceeded where the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sangrur and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC, for a period of 3 months under Section 337 IPC and for a period for 6 months under Section 338 IPC.

¶23

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶24

CRR-2391-2008

¶25

¶26

Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2006, an appeal was preferred before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The appellate Court found that there is no valid reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction as the prosecution has proved the charges against the convict and dismissed the same. Thus, the present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against both the judgments, which have concurrent findings against him.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 16 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case and being the first offender, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 08.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶30

A bare perusal of the material available on record reveals that FIR

¶31

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶32

CRR-2391-2008 4

¶33

No.124 dated 27.06.2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bhawanigarh. Upon conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sangrur. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment dated 04.11.2008, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition in the year 2008.

¶34

Further, there was a delay of three days in registering the FIR and prosecution case examined 09 witnesses and closed its evidence. The petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the allegations that tanker driven by him was involved in the accident and the accident was caused by some other vehicle and he had helped the injured person, but he was falsely implicated in the present case. Learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, however, he was acquitted under Section 427 IPC. After perusing the record, this Court finds that no defence was produced by the petitioner and there is unexplained delay of three days in registration of the case.

¶35

The perusal of the judgment reveals that the complainant-PW-2Amandeep Singh could not identify the driver in the Court due to losting consciousness at the spot. Further, the statement of single identifying witnessPW-3 Jatinder Singh was recorded on 13.09.2003 i.e. nearly three months after the accident, whereas the petitioner was not known to PW-3 before the accident and the Test Identification Parade was mandatory, but identifying the

¶36

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶37

CRR-2391-2008

¶38

¶39

petitioner for the first time in the Court after 1.5 years does not help to the prosecution.

¶40

Further, in para No.17 of the judgment dated 24.04.2006, trial Court acquitted the petitioner of causing damage/mischief to the car under Section 427 IPC, but simultaneously found him guilty of causing injuries arising from the same vehicle in collision. Moreover, the petitioner prayed for granting the benefit of probation being the first time offender where the victims had already received compensation under the MACT, but the Courts below did not accept the same and denied without any reasons. It has also been held that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, complainant and Jatinder Singh received injuries, which were declared not dangerous to life.

¶41

As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2003 and the present case has come up for hearing today i.e. 09.07.2026, where the petitioner has already faced a protracted criminal proceedings of more than 23 years. At the time of registration of FIR, he was 41 years of age and today he is 65 years of his age.

¶42

While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶43

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶44

CRR-2391-2008

¶45

¶46

A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654 , wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

¶47

“23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.”

¶48

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in

¶49

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶50

CRR-2391-2008

¶51

¶52

cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. In the present case as well, the allegations against the petitioner are that he was negligent while driving the vehicle and caused grievous injuries to the complainant, but same were not declared dangerous to life.

¶53

Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, 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.

¶54

Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged.

¶55

It is clarified that in case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and the petitioner will have to undergo the remaining jail sentence.

¶56

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of

¶57

as such.

¶58

		(DEE	PAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE
09.07.2026
vanita
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether Reportable :	Yes Yes	No No

¶59

VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

Lachhman Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhman Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Singla Vs State of Haryana

Dalip Kumar Vs Anil Kumar Dahiya, the Engineer-in-Chief and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana

Anwar Vs State of Haryana