Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1548 (PNJ)

Jamshed Khan v. State of Haryana

2012-10-31

K.C.PURI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment dated 30.5.2012 passed by Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2012/28.1.2012 passed by Shri Ashu Kumar Jain, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution in narrow compass is that on 18.2.2004 at about 7 a.m., complainant Parmanand started from his house towards his fields along with one Raj Singh son of Shiv Lal and his nephew Zile Singh who was also walking in front of them. A Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. HR-26F-5002 came from the side of Rewari which was being driven by its driver at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit into Zile Singh due to which he fell down and thereafter the offending vehicle turned on its side after hitting a stone. Zile Singh became unconscious on account of head injury. The driver of the offending vehicle told his name as Jamshed Khan son of Yusuf Khan resident of Sabras. Zile Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot as several persons have gathered there. On the statement of complainant Parmanand, FIR was registered against the present petitioner. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in the shape of recording the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan etc. and after the completion of investigation, challan under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was filed. 3. Copies of the documents and challan were supplied to the petitioner free of cost as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 4. Having found prima facie case, charge under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW1 Parmanand complainant, PW2 Raj Singh eye witness, PW3 ASI Ram Singh motor-mechanic, PW4 ASI Umed Singh who had produced certain documents, PW5 Dr. B.B. Aggarwal, SMO, who had conducted the post mortem, PW6 Constable Daya Nand, PW7 Vinod Kumar, Photographer and thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. 6. B.B. Aggarwal, SMO, who had conducted the post mortem, PW6 Constable Daya Nand, PW7 Vinod Kumar, Photographer and thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. 6. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was to be put to him to which he denied and pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused was called upon to lead his defence evidence but he did not choose to produce any defence evidence. 7. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence find the accused guilty under Section 279 and 304-A Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:- Under Section 279 IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall be liable to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Under Section 304-A IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall be liable to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 8. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27/28.1.2012, the accused preferred an appeal. The said appeal was heard by Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.5.2012. 10. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27/28.1.2012 and judgment dated 30.5.2012 referred to above, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition. 11. At the time of issuing notice of motion, this Court found no ground for interference in the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below. However, the notice of motion was issued regarding quantum of sentence only. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 5 months. The occurrence relates to the year 2004, i.e., more than 8- 1/2 years back. The petitioner has to support a large family, so the prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh and others 2012 (1) Law Herald (P&H) 473 (SC). The petitioner has to support a large family, so the prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh and others 2012 (1) Law Herald (P&H) 473 (SC). It is submitted that in the said authority, the Hon’ble Apex Court reduced the sentence to six months in case of death of 5 persons in a motor accident and in the case reported as Neki Ram vs. State of Haryana 2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 164, this Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was three months in that case. So the prayer has been made for reduction in the sentence. 13. Learned State counsel has supported the judgments of both the courts below. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to all the submissions made by both the counsel. 15. So far as the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A IPC is concerned that has not been challenged during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, notice of motion has been issued regarding quantum of sentence only as there was concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 379 and 304-A IPC. 16 .So far as Balwinder Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the ratio of the said judgment is that a professional driver should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently. In that case, the accused was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years. The appeal preferred by the convict driver was dismissed. The driver preferred revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and this Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was 15 days in that case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order of this Court held that no undue leniency should be given to a convict for offence under Section 304-A IPC in view of the increase in the death of persons in road accidents. The sentence was enhanced to 6 months in that case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order of this Court held that no undue leniency should be given to a convict for offence under Section 304-A IPC in view of the increase in the death of persons in road accidents. The sentence was enhanced to 6 months in that case. However, in the said case occurrence relates to the year 1992 and after about 20 years, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that sentence of six months would be sufficient for offence under section 304-A IPC. 17. So far as the authority Neki Ram (supra) is concerned that authority is distinguishable as in that case, petitioners made efforts to save the scooterist which fact was considered by this court for reduction of sentence in that case. The occurrence in that case also relates to 1997 and the revision was decided by this Court in the year 2009. 18. In the present case, the occurrence relates to the year 2004 and both the courts below have convicted the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 304-A IPC and six months under Section 279 IPC. 19. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is not a convict in any other case nor he is facing trial in similar offence. The occurrence relates to 8-1/2 years back so in these circumstances in my view, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence under Section 304-A is reduced to simple imprisonment for one year instead of simple imprisonment for 2 years awarded by both the courts below. I order accordingly. 20. However, sentence of fine under Section 304-A IPC and sentence of imprisonment and find under Section 279 IPC stands affirmed. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention during the investigation, trial and after conviction be set off against the substantive sentence as narrated above. 21. The revision petition stands disposed of in terms of observations made above.