Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009
Date of decision: October 13, 2009
Gurjit Singh -Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
Petitioner Gurjit Singh had been convicted by Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, under Sections 279/304-A IPC vide
judgment/order dated 22-01-2009 and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3
months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to
suffer further RI for 15 days 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 rigorous imprisonment for 30
days. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his
conviction/sentence. The same was dismissed by the Additoinal Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court), Sangrur vide judgment dated 6th May, 2009.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts
below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant
Criminal Revision.
Criminal Revision No. 1249 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 24-2-2006 Rangjit Singh complainant along with Makhan
Singh was coming to Sangrur bye-pass on a scooter. The scooter was being
driven by Makhan Singh. Amar Chand, cousin of the complainant was
going ahead of them on a Hero Honda motor cycle (bearing registration No.
PB-13N-1252). A Tata Tempo 407 (bearing registration No. PB-
10AN/0443) being driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner
by the petitioner came and struck the motor cycle of Amar Chand, as a
result of which he fell down and died at the spot . The motor cycle was
badly damaged. Driver of the tempo came down and disclosed his name
Gurjit Singh son of Nachhattar singh, but soon thereafter he fled away from
the spot.
After completion of investigation, challan against the
accused/petitioner was presented in the court.
Finding a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under
Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the
prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses.
Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 3
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 the same and pleaded false implication. He took the plea
that his tempo never struck with the motor cycle in question and rather the
deceased was in a drunken condition at the time of accident and he fell
down from the bike, due to which he died. He He did not produce any
witness in his defence.
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. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
also dismissed.
On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of
the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly
appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed
against him. 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 many years.
As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent,
District Jail Sangarur, the petitioner had undergone 2 months & 23 days of
substantive sentence as on 29-7-2009 i.e. 5 months & 9 days as of today.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already
Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 4
undergone. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to
Rs.35,000/-(thirty 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 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.
Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated
herein above, the revision petition is dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
October 13, 2009.
‘ask’