Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1079 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-10-16

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. Khushwant Ram (PW-1) made a statement before ASI. Arjan Dev (PW-6) on May 12, 1985 that at about 8.45 P.M. he had found scooter No. CHR-1357 lying on the road side in the area of village Desumajra and a dead body of a Sikh gentleman lying nearby with a woman sitting alongside. A C.R.P.F. jeep was brought to the spot and the woman was removed to the P.G.I. Chandigarh. On enquiry, she stated that she was Nisha Rani and narrated the entire story. On her statement, an FIR was registered under sections 304- A/279/338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation, it transpired that the accident had occurred with truck No. CHW-4291, driven by petitioner Kulwant Singh. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2. The trial Court relied on the evidence of Khushant Rai (PW- 1), Nisha Rani (PW-2) and several other witnesses. 3. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioner denied that the truck in question had been involved in the accident or that he had been driving the truck at the time of the accident. He has also produced certain witnesses in defence. 4. The trial Court relying on the evidence of PW-2 Nisha Rani, who was admittedly a stamped witness having been injured in the accident in question, held that the case against the petitioner stood proved as she had no motive to falsely identify him as being the guilty one. The discrepancies in her statement given in the criminal Court vis-a-vis her statement, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were held to be minor and liable to be ignored. The trial Court accordingly convicted the petitioner under sections 304-A/338 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo the following terms of imprisonment : Under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 5. Under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 5. An appeal was thereafter taken by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, who dismissed the same. 6. The present petition has been filed against the judgment of the two Courts below. 7. Mr. P.S. Kang, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner had been involved in the accident or that he had been driving the truck at the time when the accident took place. He has also argued that as the matter had been pending in this Court since 1988, with respect to an accident, which took place in the year 1985, some reduction in the quantum of sentence be called for. 8. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by the learned State counsel, who has urged that the judgments of the Courts below were in order. 9. It will be seen that the prosecution rested primarily on the statement of PW-2 Nisha Rani. Admittedly she had been greviously hurt in the accident. She also identified the petitioner as being the d river of the truck and stated that he had been driving the truck rashly and negligently at the time when the accident took place. Although a finding of fact has been recorded that the deceased had consumed some alcohol at the time of the accident, but there is no evidence to show that he had become incapacitated on that account. Moreover, it is apparent that the petitioner had driven the truck away only to cover up his guilt. 10. I am, however, of the opinion that for the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner some reduction in the sentence is called for. The accident took place in the year 1985 and the petition has been pending in this Court since 1988. A period of seventeen years have since elapsed. It would, therefore, be unfair to send the petitioner back to jail to undergo his sentence. It appears that the petitioner had undergone only about 26 days of the sentence. The accident took place in the year 1985 and the petition has been pending in this Court since 1988. A period of seventeen years have since elapsed. It would, therefore, be unfair to send the petitioner back to jail to undergo his sentence. It appears that the petitioner had undergone only about 26 days of the sentence. The petition is accordingly partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and the fine is increased to Rs.5000/-, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The other parts of the sentences, including the default clause, are maintained as they are.