Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2529 of 2006 Decided on 06.05.2013. Baldev Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus The State of Punjab .... Respondent.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?. yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. yes CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. J.K.Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Additional AG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J.Petitioner-Baldev Singh son of Joginder Singh has preferred the present revision petition against the judgment dated 15.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the appeal preferred by the accused/convict-Baldev Singh against the judgment and order dated 11.5.2004 passed by Shri S.S.Panesar, PCS, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh was dismissed.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.11.97 complainant Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
2. alongwith his brother Jarnail Singh and Avtar Singh were going from Sirhind to Khanna on a motor-cycle, driven by him and Avtar Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. Jarnail Singh was driving scooter ahead of them and Balkar Singh was sitting on his pillion seat. At about 1.35 pm, Jarnail Singh reached near factory Amrit Lal Rajeshwar Parshad in the area of Mandi Gobindgarh. A truck bearing registration not PJ.2565 driven by accused Baldev Singh came from behind and struck against the scooter. As a result of this Jarnail Singh and Balkar Singh suffered injuries. Balkar Singh died at the spot. Jarnail Singh was removed to Civil Hosptial, Mandi Gobindgarh. He succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the statement of the complainant formal FIR was registered. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities accused was challaned.
3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined PW-1 Karam Singh, PW-2 Manjit Singh, PW-3 Surjit Singh, PW- 4 Dr. K.S. Sohal, PW-5 Rajinder Parshad, PW-6 Balwinder Singh, PW-7 Avtar Singh, PW-8 Dr. Baljit Singh, PW-9 Rajinder Pal singh, PW-10 Avtar Singh, PW-11 Ram Singh, PW-12 Bahadur Singh, PW-13 Rameshwar Dass, PW-14 Dr. O.P. Aggarwal, and closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The accused in his defence evidence examined DW-1 Jasbir Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
3. Singh 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 11.5.2004 as under:- 1) u/s 279 IPC To undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI of two months 2) u/s 304A IPC To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI of three months 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.5.2004, the accused preferred appeal before the Appellate Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated 15.9.2006.
8. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present petition has been directed by the accused-petitioner.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-3 Surjit Singh, alleged eye-witness of the occurrence and PW-10 Avtar Singh. Although in examination-in-chief both of the witnesses have stated that accident has taken place in their presence, but in the cross examination, both these witnesses have stated that they reached the place of occurrence after the accident. In case the testimony of both these witnesses is taken out, in that case the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact that accident has Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
4. taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner.
11. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission.
12. Both PW-3 Surjit Singh and PW-10 Avtar Singh have stated in categoric terms that accident has taken place in their presence and is the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck not PJ.2565 at the hands of the petitioner. Both the Courts below have taken into account the testimony of these witnesses, including the cross examination wherein they have stated that they reached at the spot after the occurrence. PW-3 Surjit Singh in the cross examination has categorically denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of occurrence. So, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in respect of the guilt of the accused. The truck was recovered from the place of occurrence by PW-9 ASI Rajinder Pal Singh, Investigating Officer. So, in these circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact does not call for any interference.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no supporting evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. So, the petitioner is required to be acquitted.
14. I have considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. The truck was recovered from the spot and PW-9 ASI Rajinder Pal Singh has stated that rear tyre of truck were stained with blood. So, supporting evidence is also on the file. Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
5. 15. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that punishment is harsh. It is submitted that occurrence relates to 14.11.1997. The petitioner is facing trial for the last more than 15 years. He is the only bread winner of the family. So, the sentence is harsh. It is submitted that in authority reported as State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh and others 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 424, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded the sentence of six months, where there was huge delay.
16. I have considered the said submission and have also gone through the authority in Balwinder Singh's case (Supra). In the said authority, the accused was convicted by the trial Court and his appeal was dismissed. However, the High Court reduced the sentence to the already undergone. The Hon'ble Apex Court appreciated the factum of awarding minot punishment for offence under Section 304-A IPC in view of increasing trend of deaths in motor vehicle accidents. The Apex Court awarded the sentence of six months in that case.
17. So, considering that authority, in my view ends of justice would be met in case, the sentence under Section 304-A is reduced to one year instead of two years, awarded by the trial Court and I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine under Section 304-A IPC and sentence of imprisonment and fine under Section 279 IPC stands affirmed. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
18. The accused be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence mentioned above.
19. Disposed of. Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
6. 20. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C. Puri ) May 06, 2013 Judge sv/chugh Criminal Revision No.2529 o”
7. 9. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE May , 2013 sv