Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 877 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2004-08-11

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Rakesh Kumar son of Madan Lal has filed the instant revision petition against the impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 21/8/1991 whereby the conviction recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide judgment dated 16/10/1990 under Sections 304-A/338/427 IPC has been upheld. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under: U/s 304-A IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. U/s 338 IPC To undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. U/s 427 IPC To undergo RI for six months and to paya fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 19/7/1987 at about 7.30 A. M. Babu Singh complainant alongwith his brother Kamala Singh were going on his cycle to Sangrur from their village. Amarjit Singh injured in this case and Charanjit Singh alias Vicky (since deceased) were going ahead of them on their respective cycles. When they had covered some distance, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DBA-8731 came from the opposite side. As per the allegations it was being driven rashly and negligently by the present petitioner. It first of all struck against the cycle of Amarjit Singh and then Charanjit Singh. Amarjit Singh received injuries on account of impact of the accident and Charanjit Singh who was entangled in the car and was dragged to some distance had also received serious injuries and he ultimately succumbed to the injuries in the hospital where he was immediately removed after the accident. Two passengers who were siting in the rear seat of the car also sustained injuries and died at the spot. 3. After the entire investigation, the present petitioner was challaned in this case. 4. As stated above, he suffered the conviction by the impugned judgment of trial Court and his appeal also stands dismissed. Hence, this revision. 5. Mr. Two passengers who were siting in the rear seat of the car also sustained injuries and died at the spot. 3. After the entire investigation, the present petitioner was challaned in this case. 4. As stated above, he suffered the conviction by the impugned judgment of trial Court and his appeal also stands dismissed. Hence, this revision. 5. Mr. Mann has stated at the very outset that although the petitioner was charged in this case by the trial Court under Sec.304-A IPC on account of causing death of Charanjit Singh, Madan Lal and Chaman Lal by driving his car rashly and negligently but the prosecution has not led any evidence so far as the cause of death of Madan Lal and Chaman Lal is concerned. He has taken me through the entire evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court especially the statement of Dr. Goyal PW-10 who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Charanjit Singh alias Vicky, the deceased in this case. No post mortem of the two deceased namely Madan Lal and Chaman Lal is proved on the file. He then contends that even otherwise after the petitioner was convicted and heard on the point of quantum of sentence, the reference is only to the death of Charanjit Singh and the injuries received by Amarjit Singh. This factual position is not disputed by the learned State Counsel as well. 6. I have otherwise heard Mr. J. S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record. 7. Mr. Mann has not been able to point out any intrinsic infirmity in the judgments of both the courts below. In my view, no interference is called for by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and thereafter upheld by the lower appellate Court is hereby reaffirmed. 8. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an alternative prayer on the point of quantum of sentence. He states that the occurrence is 17 years old. The petitioner was of the age of 23/24 years. He has already suffered protracted criminal proceedings. 8. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an alternative prayer on the point of quantum of sentence. He states that the occurrence is 17 years old. The petitioner was of the age of 23/24 years. He has already suffered protracted criminal proceedings. The learned counsel then contends that after the appeal was dismissed by lower appellate Court, the petitioner has also remained in custody for couple of days as his sentence was suspended by this Court in the present revision petition on 4.9.1991. He further contends that the petitioner is not a previous convict. He is the only bread winner of his family. Another mitigating circumstance which has been high-lighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the accident, the petitioner remained at the spot for about four hours as is the case of the prosecution and he was arrested from the spot by the Investigating Officer. It is not a case of hit and run. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel asks for a lenient view with regard to imposition of sentence. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Vikram Singh V/s. State of Haryana. In the aforesaid case, there were four deaths and the complainant had also suffered grievous injuries. While maintaining the conviction this Court had released the accused (petitioner) on probation observing that the occurrence was almost 14 years old and sending the petitioner to Jail at this stage would not serve any purpose. 10. The learned counsel then relied upon another judgment of this Court rendered in Jagdish V/s. State of Haryana. In the said case, this Court while relying upon Karamjit Singh V/s. State Delhi Admn), Sukhdev Singh V/s. State of Punjab, Aitha Chander Rao V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, and another judgment of this Court rendered in Assa Nand V/s. State of Punjab, has released the petitioner (convict) on probation. However, the fine was enhanced. 11. The learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that the case of the petitioner does not call for any lenient view. 12. However, the fine was enhanced. 11. The learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that the case of the petitioner does not call for any lenient view. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and following the ratio of aforesaid judgments cited by him, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to Jail once again at this stage. Consequently, while maintaining the order of conviction, I set aside the substantive sentence and instead he is ordered to be released on probation under Sec.4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act) for a period of one year. The fine awarded under other counts shall be now treated as cost of the proceedings under Sec.5 (1) (b) of the Act. Order accordingly. 13. However, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.20,000.00 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Sec.5 (1) (a) of the Act. 14. The petitioner shall execute the bail bonds within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the judgment and the same shall be executed before the trial Court undertaking that he would not indulge in any crime of this type during the period of one year. The amount of surety/bail bond would be to the satisfaction of trial Court. The amount of compensation shall also be deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court at the time of furnishing requisite bail bonds and the same in turn shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased after giving notice to them. In case the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the present revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and in that eventuality the petitioner shall have to undergo the complete substantive sentence as awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition is dismissed. Revision allowed partly.