Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 940 (PNJ)

Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-08-23

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Sultan Singh son of Raja Ram, a driver of Haryana Roadways bus was convicted by learned Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code, vide impugned judgment dated 28.10.2002. He was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he preferred an appeal which also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 14.5.2004. Dis-satisfied with both the impugned judgments, he has preferred the present revision petition. 2. Vide order dated 24.5.2004 passed by this Court the conviction of the petitioner was confirmed. However, notice regarding sentence was issued to Advocate General, Punjab. Pursuant to notice, Mr. Mansur Ali, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in his appearance. 3. I have heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mansur Ali, DAG Punjab with regard to quantum of sentence. The relevant record has also been perused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is at present of the age of 47 years; he is not a previous convict; no accident has ever occurred except the present one; the petitioner has four children out of which three are daughters of marriageable age and one son is minor; he is the only bread winner of his family; that he has already undergone three months of substantive sentence; the petitioner being government employee if sentenced substantively, would lose his job which is going to adversely effect his entire family; the deceased in this case was of the age of 70 years who was coming on a cycle in a busy street and there is every possibility that on account of his age he could not have control over his cycle and has consequently struck against the bus; the LRs of the deceased have also got a sum of Rs. 1.8 lac from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and even the petitioner is also ready to compensate the LRs of the deceased to a reasonable amount fixed by this Court. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays that the petitioner be released on probation. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments :- 1. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays that the petitioner be released on probation. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments :- 1. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 361 (P&H); 2. Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 361 (P&H); 3. Mann Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 437 (P&H); 4. Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 502 (P&H); 5. Sheo Raj Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) Recent Criminal Reports 653 (P&H); 6. Vikaram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(3) Recent Criminal Reports 192 (P&H) and 7. Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports 783 (P&H). 7. The learned State counsel has, however, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency with regard to quantum of sentence. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and seeing the facts of the instant case, the petitioner deserves to be released on probation. 9. The benefit of probation can neither be granted as a matter of rule nor can be declined as a matter of rule. Each case is to be dealt with on its own merits. No doubt the accidents on the road are increasing tremendously and courts have to apply a reasonable caution while granting such type of relief. But if the circumstances are not very serious, the probation can be granted. 10. Although the present revision petition is dismissed on merits, yet this Court cannot ignore the fact that the deceased in this case was of the age of 70 years and was plying the cycle in the bazar. There is every possibility that he could not have a complete control over the cycle on account of his age factor and struck against the bus. The petitioner had stopped the bus then and there. At the same time, there are may mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner as well. There is every possibility that he could not have a complete control over the cycle on account of his age factor and struck against the bus. The petitioner had stopped the bus then and there. At the same time, there are may mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner as well. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not a previous convict; he is never involved in any case of accident through (throughout ?) his service career; he is having three daughters of marriageable age; he has also remained in custody for about three months. Besides this, the legal heirs of the deceased have also received Rs. 1.8 lac from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. All these factors can be very well considered for the purpose of releasing on probation. 11. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts of the present case and following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, I while upholding the judgments of conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code set aside the substantive sentence and order that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year. It is, however, made clear that the present probation shall be without supervision. 12. The fine awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate court shall be now treated as cost of the proceedings under Section 51(b) of the Act. Ordered accordingly. 13. However, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 51(a) of the Act. 14. The petitioner shall execute the bail bonds within one month from today before the trial Court undertaking that he would not indulge in any crime 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. 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, 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. Petition dismissed.