High Courts

Karan Singh vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 September 1986 · Citation: (1987) 1 RCR(Criminal) 173

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.S.Tewatia, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 909 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 426 words

D.S. Tewatia, J.

1.

The petitioner Karan Singh was convicted and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500/, in defeat of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months by the trial Magistrate for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and thus the present revision petition.

2.

The prosecution version in brief is that on 26.6.1981 at about 9 a.m. Bus No. DHP 3371, which the accusedpetitioner herein, was driving, collided with the scooter of Braham Parkash, an Assistant Agricultural Development Officer of Haryana Government, who as a result of said accident died on same day. The accused was said to be driving the bus at that time rashly and negligently.

3.

The prosecution, inter alia, examined Ram Kumar PW1 and Radhey Sham PW7, who furnished the eyewitness account of the occurrence. Ram Kumar PW additionally deposed to the fact that he had lodged the FIR.

The accused in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, denied that he was negligent in driving the bus. He pleaded false implication. He did not produce any defence.

4.

Both the courts below, after careful appreciation of the evidence adduced on the record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused and, therefore, found him guilty of an offence under Section 304A IPC.

5.

The accusedpetitioner has urged that the very submission which were canvassed before the trial Court and lower appellate Court I entirely concur in the view that has been taken by the lower appellate Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has canvassed that the petitioner is the only breadearner of his family and that this was his first offence.

7.

It being the petitioner''s first conviction and seeing his family circumstances, I direct his release on probation, under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, for a period of one year on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and to appear and receive the sentence when celled upon during the said period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 500/ as costs of proceedings. The amount of fine, if already paid him, may be adjusted towards the costs.

8.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.