Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009
Date of decision: August 18, 2009
Mukhtiar Singh -Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. RS Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
Petitioner Mukhtiar Singh had been convicted by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 279/304-A IPC vide
judgment dated 31-1-2007. He was sentenced to undergo RI for six months
under Section 279 IPC and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A IPC. , in default of payment of fine, to suffer
further simple imprisonment for one month. However, both the substantive
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his
conviction/sentence. The Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment
dated 16th May, 2009 set aside sentence of the petitioner under Section
279 IPC but maintained his conviction. Sentence awarded under Section
304-A IPC was also maintained.
Feeling aggrieved against his conviction & sentence under
Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court through the
instant Criminal Revision.
Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his
prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not
assail the judgment of conviction.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case
conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the Court may reduce the
sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to
payment of adequate compensation to legal heirs of the deceased.
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus:
On 2-10-2002, Gurmeet Sigh deceased was going on his
scooter bearing registration No. PB-49-5517. Complainant Randhir Singh
along with one Dev Raj was going behind him on a separate scooter bearing
registration No. PB-49-3817. When Gurmeet Singh reached at the turning
point of village Lohar Majra, a Matadoor bearing registration No. HR-45-
1360 being driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by
Mukhtiar Singh, accused/ petitioner came from front side and struck the
scooter of Gurmeet Singh, as a result of which he died at the spot and his
scooter was smashed.
To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the
prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Thereafter the Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the State closed the evidence of the prosecution by
making statement which was recorded separately.
The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to
him. He denied to have caused any accident and pleaded that this case was
planted upon him. He examined Ramfal in defence and closed his
Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 3
evidence.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court
held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced
him as already indicated above. In appeal, sentence under Section 279 IPC
was set-aside, however, conviction was maintained. Conviction & sentence
under Section 304-A IPC was upheld.
On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of
the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against
him. So far as sentence awarded separately by the trial Court under Section
279 IPC is concerned, in my view, the appellate Court has rightly set aside
the same. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 & 304-A
IPC is, thus, affirmed.
Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments,
has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for
reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is
first offender, the sole bread winner in the family and has already faced the
agony of protracted trial for the several years.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC by the Courts
below is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of
fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-(twenty five thousand), to
be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The
petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated
Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 4
period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and
the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by
the trial Court under Section 304-A IPC.
Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as
indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
August 18, 2009.
‘ask’