Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the orders of the courts below whereby the present petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 304A whereas u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Magistrate.

Appeal against the order of the trial Magistrate was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar vide his order dated 21st of July, 1992 and conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate was maintained.

Aggrieved against the order of the courts below the convict has filed this present petition. The same was admitted only for considering question of sentence awarded to the petitioner as well as the question whether the petitioner can be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 3rd of November, 1988, Tara Singh was going in a three-wheeler bearing registration No. CHV-4137 from Chandigarh side to Kharar. As he reached near the area of village Balu Majra, bus No CHW-7965 driven by Gurmit Singh, petitioner, came from the side of Kharar. The sai accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and struck again the three wheeler. Tara Singh fell down after the accident and died at the spot. This accident (sic) was witnessed by Kaka Singh (PW3) and Kura Singh (PW4) who supported the (sic) case in its entirety. Apart from the ocular account, the medical and other circumstances (sic) evidence produced by the prosecution has been held sufficient by the courts below to (sic) finding of conviction of the petitioner u/s 304 Part A as well as under (sic) 279 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no cogent reason to reverse the concurrent (sic) of facts in this case. However, in view of the fact that the accident took place in the (sic) of the road and other circumstances of the case, particularly absence of any materi (sic) record that the petitioner was a previous convict, his family background and the (sic) which the accident took place, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the benefit of (sic) of Offenders Act, can be extended to the petitioner. In case, the conviction is (sic) the petitioner who is a driver may first loose his job. Taking all these (sic) consideration, the petitioner is directed to be released on Probation of Good (sic) Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of two (sic) e his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of (sic) to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall also pay (sic) compensation, over and above the compensation already awarded by the (sic) Claims Tribunal, to the heirs of the deceased with respect to the said (sic) petitioner should further undertake and deposit Rs. 10,000/- for pay (sic) heirs of the deceased within one month from the date of this order (sic) shall summon such heirs of the deceased and take appropriate (sic) amount to the heirs, failing which the concession of probation (sic) withdrawn. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated? (sic)