Jarnail Singh vs Punjab State

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner was convicted under section 304A, Indian Penal Code, by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Muktsar and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 150/. In default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution was that on 29th August, 1986, the petitioner was driving truck No. PUC 8032. By rash and negligent driving of the truck he knocked down Gurmit Singh who was going on correct side of the road on bicycle. The accident was witnessed by Sampuran Singh who was going at a short distance from the deceased.

Sampuran Singh appeared as PW1. He identified the driver of the offending truck and had named him in the FIR Gurmit Singh was declared dead on reaching the hospital. The petitioner ran away with the truck after causing the accident. The plea of the petitioner was that he was not driving the truck at the time of the accident and, in fact, he was busy in his own marriage which was fixed for that very day. The learned magistrate believed the prosecution evidence, rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already stated. Petitioner''s appeal against his conviction as well as sentence was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 26th April, 1989.

At the motion hearing it was contended that the defence version deserved to be accepted and both the courts had fallen in error in rejecting the defence version. By order dated 15th May, 1989, the revision was admitted only with regard to the sentence with the observation that the prosecution relied upon the statement of Sampuran Singh PW who had lodged the FIR as an eyewitness and claimed that he knew Jarnail Singh, petitioner, who was driving the truck at the time of accident. There was not so much as even a suggestion of any enmity of Sampuran Singh against the petitioner. The question which has been argued is regarding the sentence.

It is a notorious fact. that road accidents are assuming alarming proportions in our country. The courts cannot remain idle spectators and they have to award a proper sentence having regard to the facts of each case in order to make responsible driving a way of life. Learned counsel was unable to show that the discretion exercised in this case in selecting a sentence was vitiated on any ground. Section 304A IPC makes the offence punishable with up to two years imprisonment. I for one do not believe that the sentence imposed by the trial court, and affirmed by the lower appellate court, must be interfered with simply on the ground that the accused has preferred a revision. The petitioner has to make out a clear case in order that the sentence imposed upon him is interfered with by the High Court. There are unfortunately no extenuating circumstances in this case. The petitioner ran away with the truck after causing the accident and this was not a case of any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Even though contributory negligence is not a defence in a charge u/s 384A, IPC yet this fact can be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance. It is well known that sentence is a matter of discretion and judicial precedents cannot be relied upon in order to determine the sentence in a case. There are precedents where a sentence of two years imprisonment was approved by the Supreme Court for an offence u/s 304A, IPC, and there are cases where a sentence of a few months was considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As already stated, it depends upon the facts of a given case. The burden of the argument of the learned counsel was that the petitioner is a youngman and, in fact, it was the son of the owner who was driving the truck at the material time and the petitioner had been falsely implicated to save the skin of the son of the owner. This defence has been duly considered and rejected by both the courts below. I am not prepared to lend credence to this plea. After a careful consideration I find no merit in the revision both on merits and sentence. It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.