Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

Surinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner faced trial for offence punishable u/s 279 and 304-A IPC and was convicted and sentenced by the trial court as follows:

The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and his conviction and sentence was maintained. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the relief only to the extent of leniency in the quantum of sentence without challenging the conviction of the petitioner on merits.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the case file with their assistance.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that Balwinderjit Singh along with Kewal Singh son of Resham Singh proceeded from their village Akalpur to Chandigarh on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-37-C-5953. The complainant Prabhjot Singh son of Balwinderjit Singh along with his friend Harpal Singh also proceeded for Chandigarh on their motorcycle PB-37-C-4553. They all have to got to Hemant Sood Travel Agent, Chandigarh. Balwinderjit Singh was a contractor working at Dubai and had come to India two years back.

After finishing their work at Chandigarh they all proceeded towards village in Phillaur on their respective motorcycles. After crossing the town Khamanon at about 6.30 pm they were proceeding toward Ludhiana when the truck bearing No. PB-10-BX-1125 being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came at a very high speed from front side and hit the motorcycle of Balwinderjit Singh resulting into death of Balwinderjit Singh and injuries to Kewal Singh. The petitioner came down from the truck and admitted his fault. On information highway police came to the spot and took Kewal Singh to Civil Hospital Khamano where he succumbed to his injuries. Matter was reported to the police by the complainant and the petitioner was later on arrested.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accident has taken place resulting in deaths but it was all of a sudden and not intentional. He has sought leniency in the sentence awarded to the petitioner on the ground that he is not a previous convict. He is a poor person and only bread earner of the family. He has faced agony of trial for the last about six years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the release of the petitioner on probation or by awarding him the sentence already undergone.

Learned State counsel has argued that the accident caused by the petitioner has resulted in two deaths as such he deserves no leniency. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone more than nine months of actual sentence.

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the age and antecedents of the petitioner; facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant u/s 304-A and Section 279 IPC is maintained but the sentence awarded to him u/s 304-A is modified and reduced from RI for two years to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months. However, sentence of fine is kept intact.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for appropriate action.