Pargat Singh vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—Pargat Singh has filed the instant revision petition to assail the judgments passed by the trial Court and appellate Court in regard to his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'').

The findings recorded by the Courts below in regard to conviction of the petitioner were affirmed on July 04, 2013. Notice of motion was issued to hear the parties on quantum of sentence only.

Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already suffered custody for a period of 1 year and about 3 months out of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. He has faced pangs of criminal proceedings for the past over 12 years. The petitioner has a large family consisting of his wife and three grown up daughters aged 23, 20 and 17 years respectively. The legal representatives of the deceased have already obtained compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act but the petitioner is ready to pay some reasonable compensation to them. It is argued with vehemence that in case the sentence awarded by the Courts below is affirmed, the petitioner may lose his job, causing a serious financial set back to his family which would further adversely impact matrimonial prospects of his grown up daughters. It is prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner may be released giving benefit of probation. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgments of this Court wherein benefit of probation has been allowed to the convicts for offence u/s 304A IPC, Tejwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Sudh Ram Vs. State of Punjab,

Counsel representing State of Punjab as well as complainant have not disputed the plea of the petitioner in regard to period of incarceration as well as members of his family. However, it is submitted that keeping in view gravity of situation that three persons died in the occurrence, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of this Court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

In Tejwinder Singh''s case (supra), the observations made in paras 10 to 12 read as follows:-

"10. Harking back to the facts of the current case, there is nothing on the record to show that the accused-petitioner ever misused the concession of bail. As is borne out form the record, he remained in custody for a period of one and a half month.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner, who is the sole bread-winner of his family is sent to the prison to undergo actual sentence of imprisonment, it will ruin the entire family. The next kins of the deceased Gurjant @ Janti can still be compensated.

Under the above-mentioned circumstances and by placing abundant reliance upon the observations made in the authorities sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it a fit case, where benefit of probation should be given. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on probation for a period of two years u/s 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bonds shall be furnished within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. During his probation period, he will keep the peace and be of good behaviour. However, he will come and receive sentence as and when required by the Court. He shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to be paid to the next kins of the deceased Gurjant @ Janti. On deposit, this amount shall be disbursed to the next kins of the deceased."

In Sudh Ram''s case (supra), this Court held, quoted hereunder:-

However, I am of the considered opinion that in view of mitigating circumstances, the petitioner should be released on probation. The petitioner has already undergone two and half months of actual sentence and has faced the trial for about five years. He is the sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife, five daughters, a son and old parents. He is a first offender. The heirs of the deceased have been duly compensated, under the Motor Vehicles Act. The above circumstances, in my considered opinion, are sufficient to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner

In the case at hand, the petitioner has suffered actual custody for a period of 1 year and about 3 months out of maximum permissible sentence awarded by the Courts below. He has a family consisting of three grown up daughters of marriageable age. In case, he is not given benefit of probation, he may be dismissed from service which would be a serious set back not only for the petitioner but his grown up daughters. No doubt, it is unfortunate that three persons lost their lives in the occurrence in question but it is a case in which mens rea remains absent being a case of rash and negligent driving.

Keeping in view cumulative effect of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner to extend benefit of probation u/s 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act 1958.

As a result, the petition is partly allowed to the extent that while the petitioner''s conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is upheld, the sentence awarded to him is modified that instead of undergoing the remaining sentence, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The petitioner shall file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so during the aforesaid period. The petitioner shall also be liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs to the legal heirs of the deceased (1/3rd qua each deceased). In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of two months in the trial Court, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

The petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.