Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 919 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-08-31

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 79 of 1991 and 239 of 1991. Whereas the first criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner assailing his conviction and sentence, the second has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1991. 2. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.5.1990 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of an offence under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year, as well as against the judgment dated 5.2.1991, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioners appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.5.1990 of his conviction and sentence, was dismissed. As per the prosecution case, on 6.7.1988 at about 6 or 6.30 p.m., Avtar Singh was standing on the berm of Mahilpur-Hoshiarpur road when his cousin Surjit Singh arrived from Village Jatpura on a bike. Said Surjit Singh was going towards village Chagran in order to purchase bread but he stopped for a while to talk to Avtar Singh. Both of them were positioned on the left hand side of the berm of the road when the petitioner came driving a mini bus No. PAB-5036 from the side of Chabbewal i.e. Mahilpur. The petitioner knocked down Surjit Singh causing multiple injuries. Avtar Singhs father Sarwan Singh also arrived there from this shop situated nearby and took Surjit Singh to hospital where he unfortunately succumbed to his injuries. A case was registered on the statement of Surjit Singh and the petitioner having been put to trial, has been held guilty of an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced accordingly, as referred to above. 3. It may be mentioned here that this revision petition came up for hearing on 14.2.1991 and while admitting the same, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. Firstly, in order to make out a case of acquittal on merits, it is contended that the petitioner was driving the mini bus at a very slow speed as he stopped the same at Jatpura bus stop to off-load passengers; meanwhile the deceased on his cycle holding the chain of a tractor-trolley arrived and without looking towards the front side, suddenly took right turn and in that process he was hit by the side of the bus. The manner in which occurrence took place has been duly testified by Satnam Singh a defence witness also. It is further contended that Sarwan Singh as well as Avtar Singh both are chance witnesses and have been introduced by the prosecution in order to make out a false case of rash and/or negligent driving against the petitioner. 6. The second contention is that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1988; the petitioner has already been subjected to the agony of protracted trial followed by pendency of this revision petition; he is not involved in any other such like case; with the intervention of respectables, a compromise has been arrived at with the complainant in terms whereof compromise deed dated 22.8.2005 signed by both of them, has been placed on record; the petitioner is the only source of livelihood of his family and is fastened with the responsibility to look after growing children, wife and old parents, therefore, it is a fit case to invoke powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and to release the petitioner on probation. 7. So far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be noticed that petitioner himself has admitted the occurrence though he took up the plea that the accident was caused due to negligence of deceased Surjit Singh and not on account of petitioners rash and negligent driving. The accident has been witnessed by PW3 (Sarwan Singh) as well as PW5 (Avtar Singh). Their statements are duly supported by the medical evidence on record comprising the statement of Dr. The accident has been witnessed by PW3 (Sarwan Singh) as well as PW5 (Avtar Singh). Their statements are duly supported by the medical evidence on record comprising the statement of Dr. Tikam Singh (PW1), who conducted post mortem examination of Surjit Singh deceased, the post mortem report Ex. PA and the pictorial diagram showing the seats of injuries, Ex. PA/1. Since it stands established on record that the shop of Sarwan Singh (PW3) was situated in front of the house of Gurpreet Singh, which was quite near to the place of occurrence, the presence of the said witness at the spot and/or witnessing the occurrence is quite natural. Hence, he cannot be termed as a chance witnesses. Similarly, the defence plea that the deceased was holding chain of a Tractor-trolley or he took a sudden turn and was, thus, responsible for causing the accident is also liable to be rejected for the simple reason that no such suggestion was put to PW3 (Sarwan Singh) and PW5 (Avtar Singh) in their cross-examinations. Thus, no case to acquit the petitioner of the charge under Section 304-A IPC, is made out. 8. In relation to the contention, namely, to consider the mitigating circumstances so as to release the petitioner on probation, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on some judgments of this Court reported as Vikram Singh v. The State of Haryana, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 192; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 656; and Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 310, wherein the accused were convicted under Section 304-A IPC etc. in somewhat similar circumstances and were released on probation by this Court on account of factors like :- (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 being the sole bread earner. 9. 9. Having regard to the fact the accident had taken place more than 17 years back; the petitioner has already faced the agony of trial and pending revision petition for a long period; he was extended the concession of bail by this Court more than 14 years back which he does not appear to have misused in any manner, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of administration of criminal justice would be sufficiently met if instead of sending the petitioner behind bars at this stage, he is released on probation. I order accordingly. 10. This revision petition is accordingly party allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.5.1990 passed by the Addison Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing actual sentence, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on furnishing fresh surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Hoshiarpur. He is also directed to give an undertaking to keep peace and to be of behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called for. 11. With the aforesaid modification on the quantum of sentence, both these criminal revision petition stand dismissed.