Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhej Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2013
CRR No. 1928 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1928 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 26.08.2013
Gurbhej Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal (Takhtupura), Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab
R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral)
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge and the charge under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was held to be not proved mainly on the ground that there was no medical opinion about any of the injuries on the person of victim being grievous. Conviction of the petitioner for offences under Section 279 and 337 IPC and sentence awarded by the trial Court were, however, maintained.
2. The petitioner was convicted of the charges under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the trial Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib and awarded him sentences as under:-
Office U/s Sentence of Fine In default of
imprisonment payment of
fine
279 IPC RI for 6 months ` 500/- RI for 10 days
337 IPC RI for 6 months ` 500/- RI for 10 days
338 IPC RI for 1 ½ years ` 1000/- RI for 15 days
Jitender Kumar
2013.08.30 10:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRR No. 1928 of 2013 (O&M) -2-
3. Instant revision has been filed to challenge the conviction as well as the sentences awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
4. When this revision was listed on 14.06.2013, petitioner's counsel at the outset did not challenge the conviction on merit and made a prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel have been heard and judgments of both the courts below have also been gone into.
6. The basic challenge to the conviction was identity of the driver of offending vehicle and that has been meticulously examined by the courts below and found against the petitioner. There is consistent statement of Jaskaran Singh PW-1 injured/complainant who identified the petitioner to be driver of offending vehicle. Offending vehicle was recovered by the Police from the spot. It was rightly observed by the Appellate Court that the presence of the petitioner at the spot is not disputed as the petitioner pleaded himself to be the conductor of offending vehicle and that the driver was one Banta Singh. On the contrary the suggestion to PW-1 in the cross-examination was that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by PW-1. It was the version that there was delay in lodging the FIR because of the fact that negotiation for compromise was being effected. Even there was no scope to challenge the identity of the driver. Jitender Kumar 2013.08.30 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 1928 of 2013 (O&M) -3- The finding of the learned trial Court, recording conviction of the petitioner as modified by the Appellate Court for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC well based and affirmed.
7. On the quantum of sentence, the custody certificate placed on record by the State would show that petitioner has already undergone 3 months of imprisonment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that two months of remission has also been granted by the State Government on the Independence Day of this year to all such convicts who are in custody.
9. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to 5½ months for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, which were to run concurrently, maintaining the fine imposed by the courts below for this offence.
10. With this reduction in the sentence of imprisonment, the revision is dismissed.
August 26, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.08.30 10:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh