In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 1057 of 2002
Date of decision: February 26, 2009
Raj Bahadur
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Amit Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 13.3.2002 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal
of the accused-petitioner Raj Bahadur (herein referred as "the petitioner")
against the judgment dated 5.9.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Ludhiana, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section
304-A IPC. However, in appeal the sentence was reduced from 2 years to
1- ½ years without any alteration in the sentence of fine under Section 304-
A IPC and sentence under other offences.
The brief resume of facts is that on 14.8.1999 at about 11.00
a.m. the complainant Surinder Singh (herein referred as "the complainant")
along with his father-in-law Surjit Singh was going towards their house at
Jodhewal chowk and when they reached near Romal Dyeing, the petitioner
while driving truck bearing registration No.PAT 7684 rashly and
negligently came from the side of Samrala chowk and struck against Surjit
Singh, as a result of which he fell down. The injured was removed to the
Crl. Revision No. 1057 of 2002 -2-
***
hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. On the basis of
the aforesaid statement, a case was registered. Investigation was
commenced and completion of the investigation was followed by a report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections
279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined
Surinder Singh (PW1), Jasdev Singh (PW2), Om Parkash (PW3), Dr. Anil
Verma (PW4), Sarnail Singh (PW5), CII Shange Lal (PW6) and ASI
Amarjit Singh (PW7).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner
denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case.
Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was
dismissed with modification in the sentence. Hence this petition.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
At the very outset, without assailing the conviction it was urged
that the petitioner being first offender should be extended benefit of
probation.
Having examined the impugned judgment and records of the
case, it does not disclose any illegality much less irregularity resulting into
miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in
the right perspective. As such, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the
occurrence took place way back in the year 1999 and the petitioner has
already suffered agony on account of the protracted proceedings. No bad
Crl. Revision No. 1057 of 2002 -3-
***
antecedents have been brought on record so as to dub him as habitual
offender. The petitioner has already undergone about 5 months of the
substantive sentence. As such, I deem it a fit case where some leniency
could be extended to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence.
Consequently, while dismissing the petition, the sentence is
modified to the extent that already undergone by the petitioner. However,
he is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the legal
heirs of the deceased within three months from today, failing which this
petition would be treated as dismissed in toto.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance.
(A.N. Jindal)
Judge
February 26, 2009
deepak