Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1129 (PNJ)

Ram Pal v. State Of Punjab

2005-10-26

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar whereby the petitioner was held guilty under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for six months under Section 304-A IPC, to undergo RI for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for one month under Section 279 IPC, apart from RI for a period of two months under Section 337 IPC, as well as against the judgment dated 18.7.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar whereby petitioners appeal was partly allowed to the extent that the sentence under Section 304-A IPC imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar was reduced from two years to one year RI. Both the Courts have directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 1.10.1989 Ajit Singh Subedar, Balwinder Singh and Anokh Singh (since deceased) were going from village Dhanauri to village Bhago Majro to attend the Bhog ceremony of Smt. Prem Kaur. While Ajit Singh Subedar was driving his own cycle, Anokh Singh was sitting on the carrier of the cycle driven by the Balwinder Singh. At about 12 noon, they reached near the turn leading to village Bhago Majra when a Maruti van No. PAK-9592 came from the side of Kurali at a fast speed. The said Maruti van was being driven by the petitioner and without blowing horn struck it against the cycle of Balwinder Singh, as a result of which Balwinder Singh as well as Anokh Singh fell down and received serious injuries. While Anokh Singh died on the spot, Balwinder Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Ropar in a truck and was got admitted. Ajit Singh Subedar lodged a formal report with the police and on the basis of his statement (Ex. PB), formal FIR (Ex. PW7/A) was registered. ASI Sohan Singh reached at the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW9/C). He also prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ajit Singh Subedar lodged a formal report with the police and on the basis of his statement (Ex. PB), formal FIR (Ex. PW7/A) was registered. ASI Sohan Singh reached at the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW9/C). He also prepared the inquest report (Ex. PW9/D) on the dead body of Anokh Singh and also picked up the blood stained earth from the spot which was sealed in a parcel vide recovery memo (Ex. PW9/D). The place of occurrence was also got photographed from Krishan Lal Photographer. 3. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Ajit Singh Subedar (PW-2), who had witnessed the occurrence; Dr. Anil Gupta (PW-4), who had medically examined Balwinder Singh-injured; Dr. S. Chadha (PW-7), who had performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Anokh Singh, apart from the photographer, the mechanic who examined the Maruti van, the Investigating Officer and some other formal witnesses. 4. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied that he caused the accident by hitting his Maruti van with the cycle of Balwinder Singh and took up the plea that the cyclist himself struck against the tractor trolley which was coming ahead to him and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner, however, did not produce any defence evidence. 5. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and sentenced him, as referred to above. 6. The petitioners main contention before the learned Appellate Court that the prosecution has not examined Balwinder Singh (injured) who was a material witness, therefore, an inference should be drawn that he would not have supported the prosecution case and that the statement of PW-2 Ajit Singh Subedar cannot be relied upon as he is son of deceased-Anokh Singh and is, thus, a highly interested witness, was repelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who, on critical examination of the testimony of PW-2 Ajit Singh Subdedar, found the same trustworthy. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that the statement of PW-2 Ajit Singh Subedar was corroborated by other evidence on record, especially the photographs, Ex. P-1 to P-10 which were clearly depicting the position of the offending Maruti van at the place of occurrence as well as the damaged cycle of the deceased. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that the statement of PW-2 Ajit Singh Subedar was corroborated by other evidence on record, especially the photographs, Ex. P-1 to P-10 which were clearly depicting the position of the offending Maruti van at the place of occurrence as well as the damaged cycle of the deceased. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, having regard to the young age of the petitioner and it being his first offence reduced the period of sentence under Section 304-A IPC from two years to one years RI, though sentences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC were affirmed. 7. It may be mentioned that this revision petition came up for hearing on 24.7.1992 and while admitting the same, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. 8. I have heard Mr. Sarwan Singh, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have perused the record with their assistance. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, having realised that in the light of the plethora of evidence led by the prosecution which sufficiently substantiates the charges against the petitioner and especially when the said evidence has been accepted and relied upon by the Courts below to return a concurrent finding of fact against him, it will be quite difficult for him to persuade this Court to form a contrary view and that too in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction where the scope of interference is quite limited, Mr. Sarwan Singh confined his contention to make out a case for the petitioners release on probation. Relying upon the averments made in the affidavit dated 18.10.2005, it is contended that the petitioner is a first convict who is not involved in any other criminal case. It is argued that the petitioner was released on bail more than 13 years back and he has never misused the said concession. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and if at this juncture he is required to undergo the actual sentence of imprisonment, it will ruin the entire family. It has also been contended that the petitioner has already undergone ten days actual imprisonment also. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and if at this juncture he is required to undergo the actual sentence of imprisonment, it will ruin the entire family. It has also been contended that the petitioner has already undergone ten days actual imprisonment also. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Vikram Singh v. The State of Haryana, 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 192; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 656; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Crl.) 310 and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No. 580 of 1991, decided on 13.7.2005. In the aforesaid judgments, in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view the following circumstances :- (i) Having remained on bail for a sufficient long period; (ii) Accused not a previous convict and did not indulge in any criminal activity during the post conviction period; (iii) Faced agony of trial for a considerable long period; and (iv) being the sole bread earner. 10. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is the first time convict, who has not indulged in any other criminal activity and has not misused the concession of bail, it appears that the ends of justice can be properly met by releasing him on probation instead of asking him to undergo actual remainder sentence. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed to the extent that instead of undergoing the actual sentence of one year as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide judgment dated 18.7.1992, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing bonds to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. The petitioner is also directed to give an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called for. With these modifications, the revision petition stands disposed of.