Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3114 (PNJ)

Satish v. State Of Haryana

2010-11-19

RAJAN GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner Satish Kumar had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced as under :- U/S 279 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. U/S 337 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. U/S 338 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2 The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence dated 13th November, 1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Karnal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 12th February, 2001. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He states that he is conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 7. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus : 8. On 1st September, 1992 at about 4.00 P.M., Vikesh alias Vicky complainant was going towards Namestey Chowk Karnal from his place of work i.e. Ekta Automobiles Workshop, Karnal where he was working as mechanic on his moped Sunny Bajaj by driving the same at a proper speed. In the meantime, a maruti car white in colour bearing registration No. DL-2C/8288 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused (appellant herein) came from the side of Namastey Chowk and struck against his moped. In the meantime, a maruti car white in colour bearing registration No. DL-2C/8288 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused (appellant herein) came from the side of Namastey Chowk and struck against his moped. Due to the impact, he fell down alongwith the moped and sustained injuries on his right leg. The accused/appellant after causing the accident ran away from the spot. The complainant was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Ashok Gupta by his uncle Praveen Kumar son of Kartar Singh from where he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Karnal. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused/appellant. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the trial court. 9. Finding prima facie case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and closed the evidence. 11. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. 12. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 12th February, 2010. 13. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. The appellate court also did not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. 14. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the petitioner is a poor person and main bread winner of his family and not a previous convict. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. 14. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the petitioner is a poor person and main bread winner of his family and not a previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. 15. Learned State counsel has placed on record affidavit of Jagjit Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, according to which the petitioner has undergone custody of 25 days till today. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him but the petitioner is burdened with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, to be paid as compensation to the complainant/injured Vikesh alias Vicky son of Rajinder Kapoor. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. 17. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed.