Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 625 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh Alias Pappu v. State Of Haryana

2008-03-04

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Nirmal Singh alias Pappu son of Sohan Singh was tried in case FIR No. 413 dated 12.09.1988 registered at Police Station, Fatehabad under Section 279/304-A IPC. He was convicted by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad under Section 279/304-A IPC to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment, it was ordered that he shall undergo RI for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. 2. The case of prosecution is that on 11th September, 1988 petitioner, due to rash and negligent driving of a tractor bearing No. HRB- 7387, caused the death of Gurmej Singh in village Ahli Sadar. FIR was lodged at the instance of Joginder Singh (complainant) PW-4, who had Criminal Revision No. 843 of 1995 2 stated that on 11th September, 1988, at about 7-7.30 p.m he along with Gurmej Singh son of Surta Singh was coming to Fatehabad from village Ahli Sadar on a motorcycle bearing No. PNC-8264. It is stated that when they reached near the tubewell of one Sh.Dev Raj, then petitioner, who was driving a Ford tractor, due to his rash and negligent driving struck against the motorcycle, due to which complainant and Gurmej Singh fell from the motorcycle and Gurmej Singh, the pillion rider received injuries at his neck. It is further stated that due to injuries, Gurmej Singh died. It is further stated that the accident was witnesses by Jagir Singh son of Maghar Singh, who has appeared as PW-3. 3. Prosecution examined Sham Lal Mechanic as PW-1; Dr.P.L. Verma, who conducted the autopsy, as PW-2; Jagir Singh PW-3; Joginder Singh complainant PW-4 and Joginder Singh son of Gurmej Singh as PW- 5. The record further reveals that Jagir Singh had not supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Joginder Singh son of Gurmej Singh was a witness of formal nature. 4. In both the courts below, testimony of Joginder Singh PW-4, complainant, has been assailed that he being a solitary witness cannot be relied. It has been further urged before the courts below that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the petitioner. It is further stated that in the present case, investigating officer was not examined. 4. In both the courts below, testimony of Joginder Singh PW-4, complainant, has been assailed that he being a solitary witness cannot be relied. It has been further urged before the courts below that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the petitioner. It is further stated that in the present case, investigating officer was not examined. There was nothing on the record, from which visual observations of the site could have been brought to the notice of the courts. 5. Both the courts below have relied upon the testimony of Joginder Singh PW-4 and held him to be a trustworthy witness. The Courts have believed that he was driving the motorcycle, on which Gurmej Singh was a pillion rider and due to the accident caused by the tractor of the petitioner, occurrence has taken place. Findings of fact have been returned by the two courts below. 6. At this stage, Mr. Sudhir Sharma appearing for the petitioner states that he will not be able to satisfy this Court and will not assail his conviction in case this Court grants benefit of protracted trial to the petitioner. It has been stated that in the present case, occurrence has taken place on 11th September, 1988. A period of 19 years is going to elapse. It is stated that the petitioner is sole bread earner of his family and in the last 19 years he has not committed any other offence. Petitioner was taken into custody on 13th October, 1995 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 23rd November, 1995 and in this way, the petitioner has undergone one month and ten days of his actual sentence. 7. Taking into account protracted trial, antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that when the occurrence took place, he was 28 years old as per heading of the trial Court judgment, petitioner is now 48 years old, ends of justice will be met in case his sentence is reduced to already undergone and sentence of fine is enhanced and same is paid to legal heirs of deceased. Sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.35000/- and the same shall be deposited within three months from today. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. Sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.35000/- and the same shall be deposited within three months from today. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. Sentence of fine, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased, as they deserve to be compensated.