Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 781 (PNJ)

Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-05-21

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
ORDER Virender Singh, J. - Jaswinder Singh, the petitioner herein, was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahr vide impugned judgment dated 30.7.1988 under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months for both the offences. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and it also met the same fate. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.6.1986, the petitioner along with Santokh Singh was going towards their fields and at about 7.30 P.M. his brother Parshotam Singh was also going towards field on bi-cycle. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. GTG-3541 met with an accident on the same day killing Parshotam Singh, who was on bi-cycle. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code had examined five witnesses. 3. I have heard Ms. Brij Bala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Hooda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance have also gone through the entire record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that she does not want to assail the impugned judgments of both the learned Courts below on merits and instead has prayed for reduction on the quantum of sentence. She has contended that the present case relates to the year 1986. She further contended that the petitioner has undergone about one month and he is the only bread winner of the family. She further contended that after the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 20.9.1989, he was taken into custody and he remained in for about one month and thereafter his substantive sentence was suspended on 20.10.1989. She further contended that the petitioner is not a previous convict. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Hooda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any reduction in the quantum of sentence. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of both sides, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Hooda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any reduction in the quantum of sentence. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of both sides, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. The record shows that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was of the age of 25 years and he has faced the agony of trial for about 17 years. The petitioner has already undergone about one month of his substantive sentences out of total substantive sentences of six months. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to all the aspects, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. So ordered. 8. With the modification of the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition is dismissed. 9. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court, Appellate Court and the Jail authorities. Petition dismissed.