Sukhjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioner was convicted u/s 304-A. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The petitioner is alleged to have struck the truck bearing registration No. PUW-7455 at about 11.10 P.M. on December 23, 1986 against Kamal Kant Dass - a C.R.P.F. personnel - who was on official duty at that time, despite the fact that he was signalled to stop the truck by the Police personnel, who had laid Nakabandi at the spot. Consequently upon the accident, the truck fell in the ditch on the right side of the road. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot by A.S.I. Gurdas Singh and other Police personnel. A ruqa was sent to the Police Station, Barnala, and formal F.I.R. (Ex.PW3/B) was recorded at the Police Station on the basis of the ruqa sent by A.S.I. Gurdas Singh.

Kamal Kant was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Barnala, and four injuries were detected on his person. However, he expired at 2.20 A.M. on December 24, 1986.

The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable u/s 304-A. Indian Penal Code, and was convicted and sentenced thereunder, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, vide his judgment and order dated September 14, 1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide judgment dated May 19, 1992.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence brought on record.

In the present case the petitioner was apprehended by A.S.I. Gurdas Singh from the spot. The truck which he was driving at the relevant time was also recovered from the spot. Kamal Kant deceased was on official duty at that time. He was immediately removed to the Civil Hospital, Barnala, and he expired after a few hours of his admission in the hospital. Immediately after the accident ruqa was sent by A.S.I. Gurdas Singh to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal first information report was recorded without any unreasonable delay. The case of the prosecution (SIC) and truthful witnesses. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are of no consequence. It has been pointed out by him that A.S.I. Gurdas Singh had stated that the right leg of the deceased was fractured, whereas his left leg was fractured as per medical evidence. Secondly, the A.S.I. had not said anything about the injury on the stomach of the deceased. The third discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that A.S.I. Gurdas Singh had stated that after arrest, the accused was handed over to A.S.I. Bahadur Singh, Investigating Officer, whereas P.W. Santu Ram stated that the accused was arrested and produced before the Investigating Officer by Constables Ishwar Singh and Sati Raj. The statement of A.S.I. Gurdas Singh was recorded in the Court after more than 2 years of the accident. Suchlika contradictions are natural after such a long time. There is no denying the fact that the accident had taken place on December 23, 1986 at about 11.10 P.M. and the truck, which definitely belonged to the father of the petitioner, was taken into custody by the Police after the accident from the spot. The petitioner was also apprehended from the spot at that very moment. It is not material whether the left leg of the deceased was fractured or the right leg was fractured. There was no animus of A.S.I. Gurdas Singh against the petitioner to have falsely inculpate him in the crime in which Kamal Kant Dass, who was on his official duty, was killed. Moreover, both the Courts below have held the petitioner guilty of the offence of rash and negligent driving. I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by the Courts below. Thus, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner u/s 304-A. Indian Penal Code.

It has lastly been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a youngman of 25 years at the time of the accident and that he is a first offender. Keeping in view these facts, it has been prayed by the learned counsel that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioner.

I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was a youngman of 25 years at the relevant time. The occurrence had taken place about 16 years ago. He has suffered the agony of trial during all these years. The petitioner is a first offender. In the light of these facts. I reduce the sentence from two years to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, the sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained.

Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision petition is dismissed being without any merit.

The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be taken into custody to undergo the unexpired period of his sentence forthwith.