Jirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated

29.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala was upheld. Briefly the facts of the prosecution story is that a complaint was made on 03.04.2000 by one

Rattan Singh to the effect that he along with his cousin Jagtar Singh was going to take fodder for cattle. On reaching near crossing of the minor

drain of village Mirjajan, a Tata Sumo bearing No. PB-02K-9219 which was being driven by petitioner rashly and negligently without blowing any

horn came and hit the bicycle of Tarsem Singh and he received injuries. The driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot along with his vehicle.

Tarsem Singh was got admitted in the hospital but subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries received by him in the accident. Formal FIR under

Sections 304A, 279 and 427 IPC was registered and challan was presented before the Court. After framing of charge, the petitioner was

convicted for an offence u/s 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days vide Order dated 08.09.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Batala.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur which was dismissed vide his judgment dated

29.11.2011 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was upheld.

The present revision petition has been filed after losing before both the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on the basis of statement of PW-1 who was

interested witness whereas there was serious infirmity and contradiction in his statement and also that no test identification parade was conducted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that it has not been proved on record that the occurrence took place because of negligence of the

petitioner and there was delay in registration of the FIR. Ultimately, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is ready to

compensate the legal representatives of the deceased in monetary terms, in case, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial since registration of the FIR i.e 03.04.2000. He

has already undergone actual sentence of more than 11 months against the total sentence of 11/2 years. The petitioner is a poor person and is

having small children. He is the only bread winner and having no criminal background and no case is pending against him.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the case was registered on 03.04.2000 and

since then, he is suffering the agony of trial and has already undergone more than 11 months of the actual sentence against the total sentence of

11/2 years and that he has also come forward to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased in monetary terms, I am of the view that the

submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine one. Moreover, there is no case pending against him. Accordingly,

the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000/-

with the trial Court within a period of two months which shall thereafter be disbursed to the legal representatives of the deceased. However, in

case, the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within stipulated period, he shall have to undergo the remaining sentence. Disposed of

accordingly.