Vijay Pal Singh vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.04.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner-convict against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.1.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence u/s 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 304A IPC, except that the period of sentence for the offence u/s 304A IPC was reduced to one year. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 18.11.2006, Gurbax Singh, retired Panchayat Officer of Panchayat Department was going on the evening walk at about 4.45 PM from Bassi to village Kheri on the pucca road and he saw Jagir Singh (since deceased) coming from Kheri to Bassi Pathana on his cycle. When he reached near the school of Kheri, a scooter No. PB-52-9148, which was being driven by present petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, came from Bassi side and hit against the cycle of Jagir Singh, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries on various parts of his body. Injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana and from there he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries.

After completion of investigation, report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the petitioner-convict. He faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court as afore-mentioned. Appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned appellate Court except that the period of sentence for the offence u/s 304A IPC was reduced to one year.

It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-convict at the time of issuing notice of motion that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as the 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 gone through both the judgments rendered by learned Courts below. Same are based on evidence. There is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-convict that he has been facing the agony of trial for the last about seven years and that he is not a previous convict and only bread winner of his family. It is also contended that he is not involved in any other case. It is further contended that he has already undergone about five months of the sentence.

Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that petitioner-convict 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 period of rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 304A IPC is reduced to eight months, while maintaining the fine and sentence for the other offence. Disposed of accordingly.