Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 595 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-25

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Darshan Singh son of Mohinder Singh resident of Mustabad was tried in case FIR No.34 dated 16.5.1993 registered at Police Station Sarhali under sections 279/304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran on 7.9.1994 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of offence under Sec.304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was also sentenced under Sec.279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved against order of the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, amritsar found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. In the present case, FIR was registered on the statement Ex. PA made by Lakhbir Singh to ASI Mohan Singh. Complainant stated that he was resident of Dugri. They were three brothers. Complainant was the eldest and buta Singh was the youngest. Complainant along with his youngest brother Buta singh and Harjinder Singh was going to Sarhali on his Ghuruka (Rehra fitted with a diesel engine ). When they reached near minor canal bridge at G. T. Road, their vehicle suffered a mechanical defect. They called PW3 Gurbhej Singh, mechanic. When they were repairing the vehicle, Buta Singh was sitting near the mechanic, then from the opposite side truck bearing registration No. PAT 1342 came. It was driven by a person aged 40/45 years. The truck hit Buta Singh who died at the spot. The complainant stated that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, the accident had taken place. 3. Petitioner was charged on 10.9.1993 for offence under Sections 304-A/279 IPC. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ASI Mohan Singh pw1 who recorded statement Ex. PA and had made endorsement Ex. PW1/a proved registration of formal FIR. He further deposed regarding various other facets of the investigation. HC Harjit Singh PW2 had stated that on 17.5.1993, he was posted Police Post Naushehra Pannua. In his presence, clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to him. 4. Gurbhej Singh, Mechanic appeared as PW3. Lakhbir Singh appeared as pw4. Both are eye witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. He further deposed regarding various other facets of the investigation. HC Harjit Singh PW2 had stated that on 17.5.1993, he was posted Police Post Naushehra Pannua. In his presence, clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to him. 4. Gurbhej Singh, Mechanic appeared as PW3. Lakhbir Singh appeared as pw4. Both are eye witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. Kanwar Kalwinder Singh PW5 had performed the autopsy and opined that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage and result of injuries suffered by the deceased. PW6 Gurmel Singh had attested the inquest report and got the post-mortem conducted. Attar Singh PW7, Mechanic from Police Lines proved mechanical test report Ex. PW7/a. Constable Kuldeep Singh PW8 stated that he took into possession photographs of the occurrence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. . He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded his innocence. 5. Before the trial Court, argument was raised that no test identification of the accused was conducted and he was not known to the eye witnesses. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of eye witnesses PW3 gurbhej Singh, PW4 Lakhbir Singh and held that Court had sufficient opportunity to arrive at the truth and further more receipts Exs. P1 and P2 were recovered in which name of Darshan Singh was recorded. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court, taking into consideration that petitioner is in corridors of the Courts for the last about 17 years, may construe protracted trial as mitigating circumstance. Counsel further state that petitioner is also ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased. It is further submitted that petitioner has already undergone one month and one day of his actual sentence. Counsel has also brought into the notice of this Court that it has been stated in the FIR that at the time of occurrence, accused was aged 40/45 years. In the statement recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , the age of the petitioner is mentioned 45/46 years. The statement under Sec.313 cr. P. C. was recorded on 18.8.1994. Thus, petitioner according to counsel for the petitioner today is aged about 62 years. Counsel has further contended that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the present occurrence. P. C. , the age of the petitioner is mentioned 45/46 years. The statement under Sec.313 cr. P. C. was recorded on 18.8.1994. Thus, petitioner according to counsel for the petitioner today is aged about 62 years. Counsel has further contended that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the present occurrence. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that protracted trial, age, antecedents and the fact that petitioner is ready to compensate the family of the deceased, can be taken into consideration. Hence, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the trial Court shall disburse the amount of fine to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the fine is not deposited, no benefit of reduction in sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With this modification in the order of sentence, the present revision petition is disposed of.