CIVIL APPEAL 958 of 1996 on 12 July 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 958 of 1996 Date of Decision: January 28,2010

Surjit Singh

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

Versus

State of Punjab

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.J.B.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab **

Sabina, J.

Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgmentdated 12.7.1995 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hoshiarpur.Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- underSection 304-A IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC . Both thesentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same,petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by theAdditional Sessions Judge,Hoshiarpur vide order dated 23.11.1996.

Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner-Surjit Singh.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly, stated, the prosecution story is that on 17.11.93 therewas marriage of the daughter of father's sister of Santokh Singh-complainant at village Pakhowal Police Station Garhshankar.After the marriage Santokh Singh complainant along with his wifeBalwinder Kaur, sister Darshan Kaur, father's sister's sons MantejSingh Balbir Singh, father's sister Saro, Resham Kaur, BaldeviaMajail Singh and Dalbir Kaur, was returning on tractor trolley No.PB-07A-2713 towards village Mehmandowal which was beingdriven by the complainant. Mantej Singh was sitting on the mud-guard of the aforesaid tractor whereas the aforesaid remainingpersons were sitting in the trolley. On 18.11.93 at about 9.30a.m., when they reached a little ahead of village Dohlron, aPunjab Roadways bus No. PJG-3758 driven by Surjit Singhaccused came from their behind. It was driven rashly andnegligently and without blowing any horn, the left side of the busstruck against the trolley of the tractor as a result of which tractor-trolley turned around due to the impact. Dalbir Kaur fell downfrom the tractor trolley on the metalled road and received injuriesand died at the spot. Balwinder Kaur, Mantej Singh and thecomplainant also received some injuries. Surjit Singh accusedcaused the accident by rash and negligent driving the aforesaidbus. On the statement of Santokh Singh, FIR was registeredagainst the accused. The investigation was conducted by ASI Dev Raj, who prepared inquest report on the dead body of Dalbir Kaurand got its autopsy conducted from Dr.G.P.S. Bedi. He alsoprepared rough site plan of the place of accident, recorded thestatements of the witnesses. He took into possession the tractor-trolley and the bus involved in the accident from the spot. Theaccused was arrested and after completion of necessaryinvestigation formalities, challan against the accused waspresented.

3. On presentation of the challan, copies of the documents weresupplied to the accused free of cost as required under Section 207Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned defence counsel and from theperusal of the documents, a prima facie case to frame chargeunder Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC against the accused wasmade out. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accusedby the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur to whichthe accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course ofarguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section279 and 304 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment bereduced to already undergone by the petitioner as the incident relates to theyear 1993 and the petitioner has already suffered agony of trial for so manyyears

Arguments

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence quaimprisonment under Section 304-A IPC is liable to be reduced .

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279and 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonmentof the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from rigorousimprisonment for one year and six months to rigorous imprisonment for oneyear and the fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/- and in default ofit, the petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

January 28, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge