Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

Vide order dated 17.4.1993 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, Nirmal Singh petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was maintained vide order of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated 24.9.1993. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently by both the Courts below. Aggrieved against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below, the petitioner filed the present revision petition in which notice was only issued qua the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the petitioner as well as for consideration of the question as to whether benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be given to the petitioner or not.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 8th of October, 1989 Gian Chand along with his brother Jagdish Chand was travelling from Nabha to Malerkotla in Fiat Car bearing registration No. DEA 4636. Jagdish Chand was driving the car whereas his brother Gian Chand was sitting along with him on the front seat. At about 6 A.M. when the car was at a short distance from the bridge of drain in the area of village Dhingi, Mini bus bearing registration No. PAP 9721 driven by Nirmal Singh petitioner came from the opposite side. The bus was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed on wrong side of the road and it struck against the Fiat car driven by Jagdish Chand. As a result of the said accident the bus fell in the pits by the road side. Both Jagdish Chand and Gian Chand received injuries on their person. Both the injured were removed to the hospital by Parshotam Dass. Both of them were medically examined. On receipt of information concerning the admission of the injured in the hospital, ASI Dalel Singh went to the said hospital, recorded the statement of Gian Chand and on its basis formal first information report was subsequently registered. Jagdish Chand later on succumbed to his injuries in the said hospital. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challenged, tried, convicted and sentenced by the Courts below as stated earlier.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the petitioner is an exserviceman and is not a previous convict. It was further submitted that the petitioner is the only bread winner of his family consisting of four minor children including two daughters and that he may be released on probation of good conduct.

After the accident the petitioner ran away from the spot without rendering any help to the injured in this case. Taking into consideration the manner in which the accident took place and the fact that the petitioner did not render any help to the injured as well as the other circumstances of the case in my opinion, it is not a fit case to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. However, the petitioner underwent agony of trial for about 31/2 years in the trial Court and his appeal also remained pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for about six months, in my view, the sentence awarded by. the Court below to the petitioner seems to be excessive.

While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for nine months whereas the sentence of fine is maintained. In default of payment of fine the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six months to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained.

Except with this modification, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.