Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

The first information report was registered, against the accused. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused, was supplied Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2010 3 the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

4. Charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Tarloki Nath, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala (PW1), Shiv Charan Singh, complainant-cum-eye-witness (PW2), Jagroop Singh, eye-witness (PW3), Satpal, Constable (PW4), and, Jagga Singh, Photographer (PW5). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in defence, and closed the same.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide judgement dated 22.07.09.

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2010 4 through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction. He, even otherwise, could not successfully challenge the conviction, as the Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Dr. Tarloki Nath, PW1, who conducted the post-mortem, on the dead- body of Makhan Puri and Makhan Singh Rangeela, Shiv Charan Singh, complainant-cum-eye-witness, PW2, Jagroop Singh, eye-witness PW3, Satpal, Constable, PW4, and, Jagga Singh, Photographer, PW5, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused (now revision-petitioner), was rash or negligent, in driving truck, bearing registration No. DL-1G-0091, as a result whereof, the same struck against the scooter of the aforesaid deceased, resulting into their death. The Courts below, were also right, in coming to the conclusion, that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, was cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross- examined, but, nothing of consequence could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities. The Courts below, were, thus, right in placing reliance, on the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused/revision-petitioner, was guilty of the commission of offence, punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The judgements of conviction and the order of sentence, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2010 5

12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that, the revision-petitioner, has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 16.07.03, the date, when the FIR, was registered, against him. He further submitted that, the revision-petitioner, has to support his family, and, is not a previous convict. He further submitted that suitable reduction, in the substantive sentence, awarded to the petitioner, be made. The submission of the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. The revision-petitioner, has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 27.08.03. He must have undergone a lot of mental agony and physical pain. There is nothing, on the record, that the revision-petitioner, is a previous convict. He is the only bread winner of his family. There is none-else to look after his family. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case, in which, suitable reduction, in the substantive sentence, should be made. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, being correct, is accepted.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgements of conviction, are maintained. The order of substantive sentence, is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 10 months, instead of 02 years, awarded, to him, by the Courts below. The sentence, in default of payment of fine shall, however, remain unaltered.

14. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed, to Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2010 6 comply with the judgement, in accordance with the provisions of law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

15. Registry is directed, to comply with the judgement, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned.

18.05.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE