Laxman Pandit vs The State of Punjab

Surinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner faced trial for offence punishable u/s 279 and 304-A IPC and was convicted and sentenced by the trial court as follows:

The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and his conviction and sentence was maintained. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the relief only to the extent of leniency in the quantum of sentence without challenging the conviction of the petitioner on merits.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the case file with their assistance.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.10.2009 Manjit Singh-brother of the complainant along with Randhir Singh had gone to their work place Laxmi Rice Mills, Khamanon on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-L-3760. On that day the complainant had also gone to village Cheri to meet his relatives and in the evening Jagtar Singh and Risal Singh met him. Hardeep Singh asked Jagtar Singh to drop him to Laxmi Rice Mills where his brother Manjit Singh was working. Both, Manjit Singh and Randhir Singh came out of the mill at about 8.00 pm and they started for Morinda. Manjit Singh was on the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-12-L3760 which was being driving by Randhir Singh. While complainant was on the motorcycle of Jagtar Singh. After crossing the bridge of Maheshpura canal they witnessed a canter (Eicher) bearing registration No. HR-38-N-0821, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner. It came on the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle of Randhir Singh and dragged it to the other side of the road. The canter than halted and the petitioner alighted from it. After seeing the injured persons he fled away from the spot. Randhir Singh and Manjit Singh was taken to civil hospital Khamanon by the highway patrolling vehicle where Manjit Singh was declared brought dead Ranjit Singh was referred to PGI but he succumbed to his injuries on the way.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accident has taken place resulting in deaths but it was all of a sudden and not intentional. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. He has requested that lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence with the plea that the petitioner has five minor children i.e. three daughters and two sons. His wife is suffering from last stage cancer. His parents are of old age and he is the only bread winner of the family. He is not a previous convict and has already undergone six months ten days of actual sentence and has faced the agony of trial and sentence awarded to him for the last five years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the release of the petitioner on probation or by awarding him the sentence already undergone.

Learned State counsel has argued that the accident caused by the petitioner has resulted in two deaths as such he deserves no leniency.

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and all the other facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellant u/s 304-A is maintained but the sentence awarded to him u/s 304-A is modified and reduced from RI for two years to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months. However, sentence of fine is kept intact.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate for appropriate action.