Pargat Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal directed by Pargat Singh s/o. Jhilmal Singh against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2002 passed by Sh.

G.S. Saran, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which the accused appellant has been convicted u/s 304, Part I IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three months. The law was set in motion by recording the statement made by Mohan Singh-complainant who has

stated that one Ran Singh r/o. village Khatera, District Dadelpura, Nepal alongwith the complainant were working as labourers in Milk Care Feed

Industries, Fatehgarh Chuhrian Road, Amritsar. Harjit Singh, Pardhuman Singh and Suman Kumar were the owners of the said factory. On

10.4.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. two trucks bearing registration No. HR-58-0384 being driven by Pargat Singh and second truck bearing

registration No. HR-45-4697 being driven by Harjinder Singh loaded with 640 bags reached the factory. Mohan Singh and Ran Singh agreed to

unload the trucks for a sum of Rs. 150/- on account of labour charges. At about 4.00 P.M. when the trucks were unloaded, Pargat Singh driver of

truck No. HR 58 0384 wanted to go away from there and when Ran Singh demanded his labour charges, Pargat Singh gave Rs. 100/- to Ran

Singh and started to take out the truck from the factory. He was stopped by Ran Singh and demanded Rs. 50/-. On that account, there was

altercation between Pargat Singh and Ran Singh. Accused Pargat Singh infuriated and gave race of the truck and asked Ran Singh to go away

otherwise, he will crush him. Ran Singh tried to stop the truck by closing the gate but Pargat Singh struck his truck against Ran Singh and he came

in between the truck and the pillar of the gate and fell down and died at the spot. When the complainant raised the noise, Pargat Singh alighted

from the truck and dead body of Ran Singh was taken aside from the gate and he ran away with the truck. Similarly, Harjinder Singh also ran

away with his truck No. HR 45 4697. Owner of the factory was informed on telephone and police was also informed. On the basis of the

statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered.

After investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Copies of the documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the

accused free of costs as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

Charge u/s 304 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 HC Jawant Singh, PW-2 Rishi Ram, Draftsman, PW-3

Parduman Singh, PW-4 Dr. Ashok Chanana, PW-5 Mohan Singh-complainant, PW-6 Jagjit Singh, PW-7 H.C. Gurmej Singh, PW-8 ASI

Mangal Singh, Investigating Officer and closed the prosecution evidence.

The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied and stated that he is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused was called upon to lead his defence evidence. However, he did not opt to lead any

defence evidence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty u/s 304, Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment

and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 17.9.2002 passed by Sh. G.S. Saran, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar,

the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence, according to the prosecution has taken place on 10.4.2000. However, the

appellant was arrested on 14.4.2000 in a Naka. The appellant was not known to the police officials and as such laying of a Naka is an after

thought story. According to the prosecution Chhinder and Shama the other two labourers were present at the time of occurrence. They have not

been examined. Only one interested witness PW-5 Mohan Singh-complainant, who is also resident of Nepal, has been examined. His presence at

the spot is doubtful. PW-3 Parduman Singh has stated that deceased Ran Singh was their employee. So payment of Rs. 200/- as labour charges

cannot be there.

I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission.

PW-5 Mohan Singh has corroborated the story of the prosecution on all material particulars. His testimony is corroborated by medical

evidence as held by the trial Court. Mere fact that he belongs to Nepal, is not a ground to discard his sworn testimony. Non-examination of

Chhinder and Shama is not fatal to the prosecution. They were simply labourers and normally people are reluctant to appear in the Court. So, their

non-examination is not fatal for the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is a serious dispute regarding identity of the appellant. No test identification

parade was conducted. The identification of the appellant for the first time in the Court has to be ignored.

I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission.

The name of the appellant figured in the FIR itself. There was dispute regarding payment of labour charges to the deceased. Ran Singh closed

the gate in order to not allow the appellant to take his truck outside. The appellant intentionally hit his truck to Ran Singh resulting his death.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in case whole of the allegations are taken as it is, in that case it is a case of offence

u/s 304-A IPC and not offence u/s 304, Part I of IPC. So prayer has been made for acquitting the accused u/s 304, Part I IPC.

I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission also.

The allegation against the appellant, which are proved on the record, are that he intentionally hit his truck, so as to avoid the payment of small

amount, resulting in the death of Ran Singh. So, it cannot be said to be a case of offence u/s 304-A IPC.

Lastly, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 years, 9 months and 24

days, including remission of 12 days, out of substantive sentence of 7 years. It is further submitted that father of the appellant has already died. The

appellant has a small kid to look after. It is further submitted that occurrence relates to the year 2000 i.e. more than 13 years back. So, prayer has

been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.

I have carefully considered the said submission. The occurrence relates to 13 years back. As per the conviction slip, the appellant has already

undergone incarceration for a period of 2 years, 9 months and 24 days, including remission of 12 days. However, at the same time, it cannot be

lost sight of the fact that he has taken away the life of a person and has deprived a family of his bread earner. So, considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed. However, the sentence of the appellant stands reduced to 5

years instead of 7 years awarded by the trial Court. The sentence of fine stands affirmed.

With the abovesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.

The accused is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. A copy of the judgment be sent to

the trial Court for compliance.