Harjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 29.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing appeal filed by present petitioner-accused against judgment dated 29.8.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, in FIR No. 372 dated 26.11.2005, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Fazilka, convicting and sentencing petitioner-accused as under:

Briefly stated, case of prosecution is that on 26.11.2005 complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Pritam Kaur was proceeding to the house of Darshan Singh to attend Bhog ceremony of Darshan Singh. His brother-in-law Surjit Singh was following them on separate scooter. However, when they reached little behind from link road of village Lalowali, a tanker bearing registration No. PB-10AH-6857, which was being driven by present petitioner-accused in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Jalalabad and tried to cross his motor-cycle in a negligent manner, due to which side of tanker hit against his wife and both of them fell on the road due to which, his wife sustained injuries on left side of her body. Petitioner-accused stopped his tanker for a while and thereafter he escaped. Wife of the complainant died on reaching the hospital.

Petitioner faced trial who was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused at the time of issuing notice of motion that he does not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court is concerned. However, it was contended that he deserves some leniency in the matter of quantum of sentence and hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and have gone through both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. The same are based on evidence. It cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed 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 the petitioner-accused that he has been facing protracted trial for the last about eight years. It is further stated that he is not a previous convict and is the only earning member of the family having small children and old parents to look after. It is also contended that he has already undergone more than six months of the sentence and hence, it is contended that he deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Factual position has not been disputed by learned State counsel.

In view of the aforementioned facts, I am of the view that petitioner 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 for the offence u/s 304-A of IPC is reduced from one year six months to one year while maintaining the other sentences. Disposed of accordingly.