CIVIL APPEAL 1495 of 2002 on 17 January 2000

Criminal Revision No. 1495 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 1495 of 2002 Date of Decision: February 03,2010

Ranjit Singh

...........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Deepender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana**

Sabina, J.

Petitioner-Ranjit Singh was convicted for an offence underSection 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgmentdated 17.01.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Barnala. Vide orderof even date petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fora period of two years for offence under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fineof Rs.2500/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal andthe same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala videjudgment dated 16.7.2002 . Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Succinctly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.4.95,complainant C-Surinder Pal Singh No.247 made a statementbefore ASI Malkiat Singh, stating that on 2.4.95, he alongwithSPO Charan Pal and SPO Palwinder Singh were on patrol duty inthe area of village Harigarh in a Governmnt Allwn Nishan No.PB-13-B-3568 driven by SPO Palwinder Singh. He was sitting by theside of the driver while SPO Charan Pal was sitting in the rear ofthe vehicle. They were on the way from Badbar to Dhanaula inconnection with patrolling and on the way, they noticed a scooterNo. PB-13-C-4085 going towards Dhanaula at little distance oftheir vehicle. That scooter was being driven by a youngman witha lady on the pillion seat and a child in her lap. The scooter wason its correct side. At about 5.15 p.m., when they reached nearbridge of drain, a truck bearing No. CH-01-E4648 came from theopposite side, which was being driven by a person having longhairs cut and truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner.The driver of the truck struck his truck against scooter and withimpact of the accident the lady and child had fallen on the road,while scooter and scooterist were dragged by the truck which hadfallen in the ditches. The complainant managed to stop hisvehicle and observed that the scooterist, lady sitting on pillionseat and child had succumbed to their injuries, so he hadapprehended the driver of the vehicle, who on enquiry told hisname as Ranjit Singh son of Nasib Singh, Jat, resident of PopneTehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The search of scooter revealed thatowner of scooter was Karamjit Singh son of Hardev Singh resident of village Thikriwala, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur.Thus, a message to Investigating Officer was given throughwireless, who had come at the place of accident and it wasapprised to him that accident was caused by the accused/appellantRanjit Singh while driving his truck in a rash an negligentmanner. Statement of complainant was endorsed by ASI MalkiatSingh which was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of whichformal FIR was registered against the accused/appellant.Accused/appellant was formally arrested in this case. Rough siteplan of the place of accident was prepared and autopsy tests ofdead bodies of the deceased were conducted. Statements ofwitnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The ofendingvehicle and scooter of the deceased were taken into policepossession alongwith its relevant documents and other items. Oncompletion of investigation and other formalities of the case, theaccused/appellant was challaned in this case to face trial.

Conclusion

3. On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to accused/appellant free of costs.Finding a prima facie case, formal charge under Section 304-Aand 427 of Indian Penal Code was framed againstaccused/appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.”

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, during the courseof arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner underSection 304-A IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonmentbe reduced. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner Criminal Revision No. 1495 of 2002

was 24 years old at the time of occurrence and has been facing criminalproceedings since the year 1995. The heirs of the deceased had beenawarded compensation in the claim case.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by thelearned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentencequa imprisonment is liable to be reduced .

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-AIPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of thepetitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonmentfor two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

February 03, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge