Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 231 (PNJ)

Santokh Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-01-30

AMAR DUTT

body2006
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Santokh Singh aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal vide order dated 12.10.1991 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar has filed the present revision to challenge the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC and sentence recorded by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide order dated 24.7.1990 whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The circumstances leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are that on 26.11.1986 at about 7.30 A.M. Mohinder Pal deceased along with his brother Charan Dass PW-3 was going to purchase milk towards Telephone Exchange situated within the area of Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar. When they reached near Dharamshala of Parjapat Baradari, a truck came from the opposite side, which was driven by the petitioner. It was being driven with excessive speed and in a negligent manner. The petitioner had brought the truck towards his extreme right hand side with the result that its right wheel hit Mohinder Pal and crushed him. After the accident, the driver sped away from the spot in his vehicle. The vehicle was chased by Dharam Singh on his scooter and he was able to intercept the same near the speed breaker by the side of D.A.V. College, Amritsar. The driver of the vehicle was brought back at the spot by Dharam Singh, where the police had already reached. The driver, who was eventually identified as petitioner was arrested by the police. On the basis of statement of Charan Dass, an FIR was recorded and on completion of investigation, a challan was submitted against Santokh Singh. On going through the papers sent up with the challan, the Addl. Chief Magistrate, Amritsar had framed charge against the petitioner under Section 304-A, IPC and when he pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence. 3. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses and when statement of Santokh Singh was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied all the circumstances and asserted as under :- "I do not know why the witnesses deposed against me. I have no enmity with the police. 3. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses and when statement of Santokh Singh was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied all the circumstances and asserted as under :- "I do not know why the witnesses deposed against me. I have no enmity with the police. I was lying sleep in the house of Gurdial Singh my relative near Shivla Mandir. The truck was outside his house. One Head Constable and two Constables came on motor cycles. They said to me that sand was to be brought on my truck and when I refused to oblige them they took the truck and me and foisted this case." In defence, petitioner examined Gurdial Singh as DW-1 and Sarwan Singh as DW- 2. 4 The trial Court after hearing the arguments rejected the defence version and convicted Santokh Singh under Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 5. This conviction and sentence was challenged in appeal by Santokh Singh before the Sessions Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Amritar after adverting to the entire evidence that have been brought on record came to the conclusion that there was no scope for interference with the order of the trial Court. He also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for being given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and dismissed the appeal. Hence, Santokh Singh has come up in revision. 6. I have heard Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Dhillon, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance have gone through the record. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, two circumstances have been relied upon for seeking modification of the sentence imposed upon him. Firstly, it had been urged that the petitioner had already undergone 4-1/2 months of the substantive sentence of imprisonment out of one year, which had been imposed upon him. Secondly it had been pointed out that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1986 and, therefore, the petitioner has been facing a protracted trial for over 19 years. It is in view of these circumstances, that Mr. Secondly it had been pointed out that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1986 and, therefore, the petitioner has been facing a protracted trial for over 19 years. It is in view of these circumstances, that Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner should be modified in such a way that he does not have to face any further incarceration and consequent separation from his family as the same would adversely reflect on his family, which might by now have just settled down and overcome the trauma which they would necessarily have faced on account of the conviction. 8. On behalf of the State, an effort had been made to highlight the irresponsible behaviour of the drivers of heavy vehicles once they are sitting on the steering of the vehicles, which they are driving. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 10. There is no dispute regarding the approach which is adopted by the drivers of heavier transport vehicles qua persons using not so heavy modes of transport yet one cannot lose the sight of the possibility that sending Santokh Singh back to jail may not be the solution for the problem. Both he and his family have suffered adequately and no effort should be missed to enable the rehabilitation of the petitioner in the main stream. While doing so, we should not lose sight of the fact that Mohinder Pal lost his life on account of the callous approach adopted by the petitioner in the year 1986 and, therefore, he should not feel that he has lightly got away with his default. Taking all these aspects into consideration, especially the fact that the petitioner had already undergone 4-1/2 months of the imprisonment, which had been imposed upon him, it is directed that Santokh Singh petitioner be released on probation on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of two years with the following undertakings :- 1. That he would keep peace and be of good behaviour failing which he would appear before the Court for undergoing the remaining period of his sentence as and when called upon to do so during the aforesaid period; 2. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of two years with the following undertakings :- 1. That he would keep peace and be of good behaviour failing which he would appear before the Court for undergoing the remaining period of his sentence as and when called upon to do so during the aforesaid period; 2. That he do lead an honest and industrious life; and 3. that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation within two months from today, which if deposited shall be payable to the heirs of the deceased. 11. In the event of failure to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as compensation within the stipulated period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any further reference to the Bench. 12. Except for the above modification, this appeal fails and is dismissed.