Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 07.05.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing appeal filed by petitioner-accused against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mukerian vide which petitioner-accused was convicted for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC and sentenced as under:-

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below.

Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that, on 23.07.2009 complainant-Sarjiwan Kumar was going on his cycle. His father Bishamber Dass was on his own cycle. They were going from Mukerian to village Parika. At about 2.10 PM, they were near the turning of village Parika and his father was ahead of him. In the meantime, an Indica car bearing registration no. PB-18M-1993 came from the opposite direction. The same was being driven by present petitioner-accused in a very rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he could not control the same and hit against the cycle being driven by father of complainant, due to which he fell down and sustained head injuries. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 3. After completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against petitioner-accused, who faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial court as aforementioned. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner at the time of issuing of notice of motion that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgments passed by both the courts below convicting petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC.

However, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he belongs to labour class and is only bread-winner of the family. It is further contended that he has been facing agony of trial for the last about six years. Hence, it is contended that he deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the period of imprisonment of two years for offence u/s 304A IPC is reduced to one year while maintaining the other sentences. Disposed of accordingly.