Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1322 (PNJ)

Hardev Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-07-12

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Ropar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 28.5.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, convicting him under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Allegations in nutshell are that on 14.3.1990 at about 3.00 p.m. Sher Singh, Lumberdar of village Khabran was having talk with Garja Singh of village Solkhian at the edge of his fields situated near Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh. In the meantime, Balbir Singh while driving the scooter No. CHS-2358 came from the side of Kurali. At the same time, the petitioner while driving bus No. PJG-1038 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter, causing the death of Balbir Singh and damaging the scooter badly. Assistant Sub-Inspector Sarwan Ram, Incharge Police Post Behrampur reached the spot, recorded the statement of Sher Singh Ex. PC, upon which First Information Report Ex. PW-6/A was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Rough site plan Ex. PW-8/B was prepared and photographs of the site of occurrence were taken. On 15.3.1990, the petitioner was arrested. 3. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Court. Charge was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge examined Krishan Lal (PW-1), Kishori Lal (PW-2), Sher Singh (PW-3), Bhag Singh (PW-4) Garja Singh (PW-5), ASI Vasdev (PW-6), HC Sukhdev Singh (PW-7), Sub-Inspector Sarwan Ram (PW-8) and Dr. Jasbir Singh (PW-9). 5. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner made complete denial and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction and the appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed. 6. At the very outset, the conviction recorded by the courts below has not assailed. However, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being a first offender and having faced the agony of the trial for the last about 16 years, should be extended some leniency. 7. 6. At the very outset, the conviction recorded by the courts below has not assailed. However, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being a first offender and having faced the agony of the trial for the last about 16 years, should be extended some leniency. 7. Having scrutinised the records, it would be appropriate to observe that sufficient evidence has been led on the record to establish that the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No. PJG-1038, which struck against the scooterist and as a result of which Balbir Singh died and the scooter was badly damaged. This fact has not been disputed that the petitioner is a first offender. The record further reveals that he has already suffered a lot due to the longevity of the trial and pendency of his revision in this court, during the last about 16 years, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to send him again to the jail, rather, the ends of justice would be met, if the family of the deceased is adequately compensated. 8. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. However, sentence passed against petitioner Hardev Singh is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on his executing bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. It is further directed that he shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- in the trial Court, which shall be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which this revision will be treated as dismissed in toto.