Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 275 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-03-01

V.K.BALI

body2001
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 21.3.1987, recorded by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 403-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This order recorded by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, has since been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 13.5.1998 in appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. Briefly put, it has been the prosecution case that on the intervening night of 16/17.2.1985, Tara Singh deceased, Noratam Singh, PW.1 and Jugraj Singh, PW.2 had gone from Ludhiana on jeep as Jugraj Singh had to go to his village Bija. At about 1.00 A.M. when they reached near the hotel of one Baldev Singh on the G.T. Road in the area of Kot Sekhon, Jugraj Singh, PW.2 got down from the jeep to go to his village Bija. After dropping Jugraj Singh at that place when the jeep was to start for Ludhiana, a Tanker was seen coming from opposite side. The jeep was being driven by Tara Singh deceased. The petitioner was driving the tanker at that time. He was driving it rashly and negligently in a zig zag manner. When the Tanker came near the jeep, the tankers driver brought it on his right side and struck it with the front portion of the jeep as a result of which Tara Singh fell on the ground and was crushed under the tyres of the tanker and died at the spot and Narotam Singh, PW.1 received multiple injuries on his person. 3. With a view to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined Narotam Singh, PW.1 Jugraj Singh, PW.2 Bakhtawar Singh, PW.3 Karam Singh, mechanic, PW.4, Baljit Singh, PW.5 Paramjit Singh, PW.6, Dr. P.D. Singla, PW.7, Dr. P.K. Bansal, PW.8 and ASI Ram Singh, PW.9. 4. 3. With a view to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined Narotam Singh, PW.1 Jugraj Singh, PW.2 Bakhtawar Singh, PW.3 Karam Singh, mechanic, PW.4, Baljit Singh, PW.5 Paramjit Singh, PW.6, Dr. P.D. Singla, PW.7, Dr. P.K. Bansal, PW.8 and ASI Ram Singh, PW.9. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegation of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He further took up the plea that on the day of accident, he was going from the side of Doraha with the Tanker and he was driving it and when he reached the place of accident, he stopped the tanker there on humanitarian grounds but he was falsely implicated in this case. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 5. The prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Both the PWs., namely Narotam Singh, PW.1 and Jugraj Singh, PW.2 have categorically stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was driving the tanker in a zig zag manner and it struck in front portion of the jeep as a result of which Tara singh received injuries and died at the spot. The veracity of these witnesses could not be challenged, as both of them stood the test of cross- examination. It requires to be mentioned that Karam Singh, mechanic, PW.4 tested the tanker and submitted his report Ex. PD. He reported that the front light of the tanker was found broken. The photographs taken clearly show that the tanker was damaged from the front side. When questioned, the petitioner stated that when he reached near the place of accident, he stopped the tanker on humanitarian grounds but was falsely implicated in this case. From his statement, it appears that he caused the accident otherwise, there was no question that the tanker would have been damaged. 6. I find no merit in this revision. This revisions is devoid of merit and has to be dismissed. However, so far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner, it appears, has faced an agonising trial for a long period. As is clear from the operative part of the order passed by Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna that he was first offender. The ends of justice would meet if while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioner, sentence is reduced. As is clear from the operative part of the order passed by Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna that he was first offender. The ends of justice would meet if while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioner, sentence is reduced. I reduce the sentence from one year to six months under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. The sentences u/ss 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code are however, maintained. The petitioner shall also pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment thereof, he would further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences would run concurrently as suggested by the Courts below. In view of the above, this revision succeeds partly. Revision partly allowed.