Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1396 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh @ Makhan v. State Of Punjab

2007-07-26

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. The accused petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was slapped with the sentence of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304-A IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo RI for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 IPC for causing death of Rajesh Kumar and causing injuries to Sukhdev by his rash and negligent act. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed. Hence this petition. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 14.11.1995, Vipin Kumar was going from Jalandhar to Nakodar on scooter. Rajesh Kumar and Sukhdev Singh were going on another scooter ahead of him. At about 7.45 PM when they reached near St. Judes Convent School, Nakodar accused while driving the scooter rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and rammed into the scooter of Rajesh Kumar rendering both Rajesh Kumar and Sukhdev Singh injured. Ultimately, Rajesh Kumar died at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On the statement of Vipin Kumar(PW2) FIR was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. The investigation commenced; later on the death of Rakesh Kumar offence was converted under Section 304 A IPC; Inquest report PE was prepared by ASI Gopal Singh at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. He recorded the statements of the witnesses; prepared the site plan; got the vehicle mechanically examined and on completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. The petitioner denied the charges and opted for trial. 3. During the trial the prosecution examined Dr. Paramjit Singh, Medical Officer (PW1) who conducted the autopsy of Rajesh on 18.11.1995 at 12.10 PM and observed 13 injuries on his body as per his opinion Rajesh died as a result of head injury and other injuries which were also collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The other witnesses examined are Vipin Kumar (PW2), Fateh Chand (PW3), Surjit Ram Clerk (PW4) and Gopal Singh, ASI (PW5). 4. The accused in his statement under Section 313 refuted all the allegations as levelled against him during evidence, however, he did not lead any evidence in defence. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. 5. At the very outset the counsel for the petitioner chose not to say anything on the question of conviction. 4. The accused in his statement under Section 313 refuted all the allegations as levelled against him during evidence, however, he did not lead any evidence in defence. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. 5. At the very outset the counsel for the petitioner chose not to say anything on the question of conviction. Even otherwise having scrutinised the evidence on the record, it stands fully established that Rajesh Kumar died and Sukhdev Singh suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent act of the petitioner. No plausible defence has been led to prove his innocence. 6. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the sword of damocles remained hanging over his head since the date of the accident much less since 24.08.2001 when he was ultimately convicted and sent to jail by the Appellate Court. He has already suffered 8 months of substantive sentence, therefore, some leniency may be extended to him. 7. Having given my consideration to the aforesaid contentions I find some substance in the same. The occurrence in the case took place 12 years back. The trial remained pending against him for 5 years, so as appeal for 2 years. Now this petition is also pending since 2002. As such the petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of the agony of the proceedings pending against him, therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to take some lenient view in the matter. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is hereby dismissed with the modification in the sentence so as to reduce the same to one year without altering the sentence of fine. 9. Copy of the judgment may be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for procuring the custody of the petitioner for serving remaining part of the sentence.