Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1124 (PNJ)

Rajeev Kanojia v. State of U. T. , Chandigarh

2014-07-31

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of judgment of the trial Court, whereby, he was convicted for offence under Sections 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.200/- with default clause and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304-A IPC with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause. The judgment of the trial Court was upheld by the lower Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed on 02.06.2006. 2. The petitioner, after losing his case before the two Courts below, filed the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgments of both the Courts below by raising various grounds, such as, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the MLR report. He further submits that the postmortem report of the deceased was not proved as Dr. Sahni did not appear before the trial Court. Learned counsel also submits that the mechanical report was not proved by the mechanic concerned as he was given up and in the absence of statement of Mechanic, the petitioner cannot be held liable in any manner. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that PW-7 Shammi Kumar was the eye witness of the incident but he denied all the facts in Chief as well as in Cross Examination. It was mentioned in the cross examination that his signatures were obtained by the police on blank paper. It was also mentioned in the statement of PW-7 that he did not remember the number of the scooters which struck with each other because of accident. Similarly, Satpal-PW3, who is father of the deceased, has admitted in his cross-examination that his son was coming from “Kaccha Rasta” and struck with the front wheel and fell down. PW-3 Satpal also admitted in cross-examination that he did not remember the date of accident and about recording of his statement by the police. Even in the statement of Investigating Officer, it was mentioned that he did not remember the date on which, the statement of PW-3 Satpal was got recorded by him. 4. Apart from the arguments on merit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial since registration of FIR i.e 07.03.1997. Even in the statement of Investigating Officer, it was mentioned that he did not remember the date on which, the statement of PW-3 Satpal was got recorded by him. 4. Apart from the arguments on merit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial since registration of FIR i.e 07.03.1997. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner being a poor person having large family to support; a sole bread winner of his family and is a first offender, requests for taking a lenient view keeping in view the long pendency of criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to compensate the aggrieved party. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone 18 days of actual custody. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that that the petitioner is ready to compensate the aggrieved party and is a first offender as no other criminal case is pending against him and moreover, being a poor person and having large family to support, it would be in the interest of justice, to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the family of the deceased. 7. As such, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, he shall have to undergo remaining part of his sentence. However, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- as deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court shall be released to the family of the deceased. 8. The present petition is disposed of with the said modification in sentence. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————