Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2275 (PNJ)

Sudh Ram v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-22

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2006
Judgment 1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 11.10.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate ist Class, Jalandhar, and the judgment dated 28.3.2006, passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. In essence, the petitioner impugns his conviction and sentence. 2. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused in FIR No.93, dated 3/8/2001, registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 427 of the IPC, at police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar, for causing the death of one Arvind mehra, while driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner. 3. On 3/8/2001, the complainant, Krishan Lal recorded a statement before ASI Mohinder Singh that while returning from Jalandhar to Amritsar, with his son Kamal Kumar and Arvind Mehra (the deceased) in their car, a Punjab Roadways bus, being driven by a Sikh, in a rash and negligent manner, struck against their car. The car was dragged towards the left side of the road and was severely damaged. Arvind Mehra received multiple injuries and died on the spot. The aforementioned FIR was lodged on the statement of Krishan Lal, the complainant and the petitioner was arrested. Charges were framed, against the petitioner, under Sections 279/304-A/337 of the IPC. As he pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined PW1-Dr. Harpreet Mann, PW2-Krishan Lal, the complainant, PW3-Kamal Kumar, PW4-Constable Dalip Singh, PW5-Gurdip Singh, PW6-Ram Parkash, PW7-Krishan Kumar, mechanic, PW8-ASI Mohinder Singh and PW9-Surinder Mohan. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, the petitioners statement was recorded, under section 313 of the Cr. P. C, and all incriminating material was put to him. In defence, the petitioner examined DW1-Dev Raj. 4. On the basis of the depositions of the eye witnesses, the doctor, and the site plan, as also the other evidence, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for offences, under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to RI for one year, a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof 30 days simple imprisonment for the offence, under Sec.304-A of the IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for six months, a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof 15 days simple imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.279 of the IPC. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, against his conviction and sentence, was dismissed. 5. He was also sentenced to RI for six months, a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof 15 days simple imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.279 of the IPC. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, against his conviction and sentence, was dismissed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the material on record is inherently deficient and incase, the Courts below have taken into consideration the defence evidence, they would have clearly held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased. It is further contended that in case, this Court does not accept the arguments on merit, the petitioner be released on probation, as otherwise, he would lose his job. It is further contended that the petitioner has faced trial since 3.8.2001. He is the sole bread earner of his family, which comprises of his wife, 5 daughters, a son and old parents, is a first offender and has never faced any criminal trial. The heirs of the deceased have already received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, contends that there are no contradictions in the depositions of the eye witnesses. The eye witnesses were travelling in the car and, therefore, were the best persons to depose as to the nature of the accident. As their depositions have withstood the test of cross-examination, and the witness, produced in defence, is not credible, the present petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and order. 7. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and order. The petitioner caused an accident, leading to the demise of Arvind mehra, who was travelling in a car, alongwith the complainant and his son. These witnesses have categorically deposed as to the manner in which the bus was being driven, namely, a rash and negligent manner. The defence evidence, produced by the petitioner, does not inspire confidence. Consequently, the judgments and order, passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference. 8. However, I am of the considered opinion that in view of mitigating circumstances, the petitioner should be released on probation. The petitioner has already undergone two and half months of actual sentence and has faced the trial for about five years. Consequently, the judgments and order, passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference. 8. However, I am of the considered opinion that in view of mitigating circumstances, the petitioner should be released on probation. The petitioner has already undergone two and half months of actual sentence and has faced the trial for about five years. He is the sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife, five daughters, a son and old parents. He is a first offender. The heirs of the deceased have been duly compensated, under the Motor Vehicles Act. The above circumstances, in my considered opinion, are sufficient to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed to the extent that while the petitioners conviction under Sections 279/304-A of the ipc is upheld, the sentence, awarded to him, is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the remainder of the sentence, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing bonds to the tune of rs.30,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. The petitioner is, however, directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so.