Full Judgment
Criminal Revision No.729 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.729 of 2013 Date of decision 17.05.2013. Gurinder Singh ...... Appellant . versus 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. G.S.Thind, Advocate for the appellant Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J.Gurinder Singh son of Karam Singh has directed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 19.02.2013 passed by Shri K.C.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal preferred by accused against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by Mrs. Patima Arora, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 294 of the IPC ; simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 354 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 of the IPC and Criminal Revision No.729 o”
2. all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.12.2007 Manpreet Kaur PW got recorded her statement with the investigating officer that she is household lady. On that day at about 7.00a.m., her husband had left the house and she was alone and neighbourer to her residence Darshan Singh, Jeet Singh and others on rent who ply tractor and trolley on rent. One Mukhiya son of Karam Singh used to visit in the residence of Darshan Singh. At about 7.00p.m., she was shifting the domestic articles from one room to other and on seeing her alone, Mukhiya came in the room and caught her from her arms and used obscene language. When she rejected, he twisted her arms and dragged in the courtyard where she was slapped. She wa abused and also pushed her head against a wall due to which she received injuries. She further strated that in this scuffle, her bangles were broken and she raised alarm which attracted Narinder Singh and Darshan Singh. Her husband also came at the spot and the accuysed fled away from the spot. She was medico-legally examined. FIR was registered. During the course of investigations, accused was arrested and upon conclusion of further investigations, challan against the accused was presented in Court for trial.
4. On appearance, copies of documents were supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge under Sections 294, 354 and 323 of the IPC was framed against the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined Dr.Gian Criminal Revision No.729 o”
3. Singh Lumba as PW1, complainant herself stepped into the witness box as PW-2, Bhajan Ram as PW3, ASI Piara Lal as PW-4, and thereafter learned Additional Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of t h e a c c u s e d u n d e r s e c t i o ”
1. 3 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false Implication. The accused did lead any evidence in defence.
7. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide order dated 12.10.2011, as aforesaid.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant. The said appeal was dismissed by shri K.C.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 19.02.2013.
9. Still feeling disssatified with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been filed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
11. In this case, the counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below and has prayed that he is undergoing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than five years. Criminal Revision No.729 o”
4. The occurrence relates to the year 2007 and since then the petitioner is facing trial. He is not a previous convict not has been involved in any other case. He has further submitted that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of one month and nineteen days as on 5.4.2013 meaning thereby that he has undergone incarceration for a period of more than three months as on today out of the substantive sentence of six months. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence to the period already undergone.
13. I have carefully considered the said submission.
14. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that occurrence has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, which had resulted into the death of deceased. So, conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.
15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, the ends of justice would be met in case his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. And I order accordingly. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- as compensation before the trial Court, which shall be paid to the injured/complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C., within two months from today. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. In case accused failed to deposite the above said amount within stipulated period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
16. With the aforesaid reduction in sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly Criminal Revision No.729 o”
5. 17. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. May 17, 2013 (K. C. PURI) sv JUDGE