Kulwant Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.—The petitioner-convict Kulwant Singhu has preferred this revision petition against the order of the trial Court dated July 7, 1995 by which he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 15-5-1996, who has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. The petitioner has confined his prayer with regard to quantum of sentence only.

Briefly stated the complainant Sant Parkash Singh and the deceased Sohan Singh were coming from village Nasrala to Hoshiarpur on Scooter No. CHL 6518 driven by the deceased. When they reached near bus stop Singriwala, the petitioner-convict struck his truck against the scooter while overtaking a bus and killed deceased Sohan Singh who sustained injuries on his head and mouth, which resulted into his death.

Both the Courts below after discussing the evidence have conclusively come to the conclusion that the petitioner convict while driving his truck rashly and negligently struck it against the scooter as a result of which the driver of the scooter sustained serious injuries on his head and mouth which resulted into his death.

The petitioner-convict has been sentenced for an offence u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months for an offence u/s 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a youngman of 24 years who has to look after his family and the offence committed by him was not intentional. He is not a previous convict and his antecedents are not doubtful. The offence was committed by him in the'' ordinary course of his driving as he could not control the vehicle the accident took place.

In this regard, he referred to 1995 (1) RCR 572 in which it is held that the accused-convict is not entitled to benefit of probation for he did not extend helping hand at the time of accident in removing the victim to hospital so as to provide him medical aid. However, the sentence was partly reduced for the accused-convict in that case had sustained the shock of trial for 1 1/2 years and appeal before the Sessions Judge for about 1 1/2 years.

However, the position in this case is different for the trial was completed within a year and appeal was disposed of in a period of nine months. Both the Courts in their wisdom did not exercise the discretion of releasing the petitioner-conviction probation of good conduct after admonition as envisaged u/s 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court does not feel that there is any reasonable ground available in the circumstances of the case favouring the petitioner to be released on probation. Hence this prayer of the petitioner is rejected.

About the reduction of quantum of sentence which is already less, I am guided by Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in holding that where the rash and negligent driving of truck driver had resulted in a fatal accident the High Court should not interfere with the sentence of 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the truck driver (as in this case) on the ground that he has to maintain a large family. When a life has been lost and the circumstances of the driving are harsh no compassion can be shown. The petitioner after overtaking a bus struck his vehicle against the scooter of the deceased and killed him. Hence no compassion can be shown towards him in reducing the sentence which is already meagre. Hence this revision petition fails and is rejected.