Avtar Singh @amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1067374
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-05-2013
AppellantAvtar Singh @amrik Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crr no.1252 of 2005 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. revision no.1252 of 2005(o&m) date of decision: september 5, 2013. avtar singh @amrik singh .....petitioner(s) versus state of punjab .....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.r.k.trikha, advocates, for the petitioner. mr.ashish sanghi, dag, punjab. ***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 30.05.2005 rendered by learned additional sessions judge (adhoc).fast track court, hoshiarpur dismissing appeal filed by petitioner-accused against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2001 passed by learned judicial magistrate firs.class, dasuya in fir no.153/96 dated 17.09.1996, under sections 304a/279/427 ipc, police station tanda, vide which petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced as under:- under section 279 ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of `500/-. singh omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh crr no.1252 of 2005 -2- under section 304a ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year and to pay fine of `500/- however, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that, on 17.09.1996 at about 1.00 pm, complainant was standing outside his house situated at by-pass tanda, police station tanda. meanwhile, parkash chand also came there and they were talking with each other. in the meantime, a truck bearing registration not pb-09-4721, which was being driven by present petitioner-accused avtar singh @amrik singh in a very rash and negligent manner came there. he could not control the same and hit against scooter bearing registration not pb-08-d-3301 being driven by a young man of 30/32 years of age. another man was also sitting on pillion seat of the scooter. the scooterists were going towards tanda from jalandhar. the accident was occurred while the driver of the truck tried to overtake a bus and in that process, he lost control of the truck and hit against the scooter. both the scooterists died at the spot, whose names were revealed lateron as amrik singh and gurdas singh. petitioner-accused faced trial. he was convicted and sentenced by learned trial court as aforementioned. appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned additional sessions judge (adhoc).fast track court, hoshiarpur. singh omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh crr no.1252 of 2005 -3- it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the present revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. i have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. the same are based on evidence. there is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below warranting interference by this court. however, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he is not a previous convict and he is the only bread-winner of the family and that he is having small children to look after. it is further contended that he has been facing agony of trial for the last about 17 years.hence, it is contended that he deserves leniency in the quantum of sentence. on the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-state that petitioner had taken away two valuable lives by driving his truck in a rash and negligent manner and hence, he does not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence. taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that petitioner-accused deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. while affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that period of imprisonment is reduced from one and a half year to one singh omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh crr no.1252 of 2005 -4- year for offence under section 304a ipc while maintaining the other sentences. bail bond of the revision-petitioner stands cancelled. the concerned chief judicial magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of section 428 of the code of criminal procedure. disposed of accordingly. ( ram chand gupta ) september 5, 2013. judge ‘om’ singh omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

CRR No.1252 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Revision No.1252 of 2005(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2013.

Avtar Singh @Amrik Singh .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.K.Trikha, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashish Sanghi, DAG, Punjab.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 30.05.2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc).Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur dismissing appeal filed by petitioner-accused against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Dasuya in FIR no.153/96 dated 17.09.1996, under Sections 304A/279/427 IPC, police station Tanda, vide which petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 279 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of `500/-.

Singh Omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRR No.1252 of 2005 -2- Under Section 304A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year and to pay fine of `500/- However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including both the judgments rendered by learned courts below.

Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that, on 17.09.1996 at about 1.00 PM, complainant was standing outside his house situated at by-pass Tanda, police station Tanda.

Meanwhile, Parkash Chand also came there and they were talking with each other.

In the meantime, a truck bearing registration not PB-09-4721, which was being driven by present petitioner-accused Avtar Singh @Amrik Singh in a very rash and negligent manner came there.

He could not control the same and hit against scooter bearing registration not PB-08-D-3301 being driven by a young man of 30/32 years of age.

Another man was also sitting on pillion seat of the scooter.

The scooterists were going towards Tanda from Jalandhar.

The accident was occurred while the driver of the truck tried to overtake a bus and in that process, he lost control of the truck and hit against the scooter.

Both the scooterists died at the spot, whose names were revealed lateron as Amrik Singh and Gurdas Singh.

Petitioner-accused faced trial.

He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial court as aforementioned.

Appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc).Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur.

Singh Omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRR No.1252 of 2005 -3- It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the present revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned.

I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below.

The same are based on evidence.

There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below warranting interference by this Court.

However, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he is not a previous convict and he is the only bread-winner of the family and that he is having small children to look after.

It is further contended that he has been facing agony of trial for the last about 17 yeaRs.Hence, it is contended that he deserves leniency in the quantum of sentence.

On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-State that petitioner had taken away two valuable lives by driving his truck in a rash and negligent manner and hence, he does not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner-accused deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted.

While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that period of imprisonment is reduced from one and a half year to one Singh Omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRR No.1252 of 2005 -4- year for offence under Section 304A IPC while maintaining the other sentences.

Bail bond of the revision-petitioner stands cancelled.

The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Disposed of accordingly.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 5, 2013.

JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2013.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh