Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2011
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRR NO. 1868 OF 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR NO. 1868 OF 2011(O&M)
DECIDED ON : 04.10.2011
Rajbir
...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order/judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed by Shri B.B.Parsoon, Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 11.03.2010 passed by Shri Rajesh Gupta, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gohana, was dismissed.
Briefly stated, Rajbir Singh was put to trial for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC by SHO, Police Station City Gohana, District Sonepat.
As per the case of prosecution, on 18.01.2002, a ruqa was received from CHC Gohana stating that Parkash Chand s/o CRR NO. 1868 OF 2011(O&M) -2- Hukam Chand has been brought to the hospital in a road side accident. He was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Upon this, HC Ramesh Kumar reached PGIMS, Rohtak where the doctor declared the injured unfit for making statement. On 20.01.2002, HC Ashok Kumar along with Constable Rajender was present at bus stand for taking the public transport for PGI, Rohtak, complainant Balraj approached them and informed them that on 18.01.2002, he along with his parental cousin Sandeep and Parkash was on their way to village Mahra in Maruti Car bearing No. CH-01-M-7325. The car was being driven by Parkash. When they reached at some distance from cold store at Rohtak road, a TATA 407 bearing registration No. DL-1LC-3782 came from the opposite side. It was being driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle hit against their car by going on the wrong side. The driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name as Rajbir Singh. However, he fled away from the spot taking the advantage of the fact that the injured and other witnesses were busy in attending the injured. On the basis of his statement, the case was registered and after investigation, challan was presented.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused, free of costs.
The learned trial Court after going through the records of the case, framed charge under Sections 279/337/338 IPC CRR NO. 1868 OF 2011(O&M) -3- against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Sandeep as PW-1, Balraj as PW-2, Dr. Karamvir, Medical Officer as PW-3, Dr. Naresh Kumar Gardwal as PW-4, ASI Wajir Singh as PW-5, HC Naresh Motor Mechanic as PW-6 and closed the evidence.
The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded false implication.
He did not lead any witness in defence.
The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC. However, the accused was acquitted under Section 338 IPC. He was sentenced as under :
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Sr. No. Offence sentence awarded
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
01. U/S 337 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for four months
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
However, no separate sentence was awarded under Section 279 IPC as the learned trial Court observed that Section 337 IPC is aggravated from the offence under Section 279 IPC.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 11.03.2010 passed by Shri Rajesh Gupta, JMIC, Gohana, the accused preferred an appeal and the same was heard by CRR NO. 1868 OF 2011(O&M) -4- Dr.Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 09.08.2011.
Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonepat and judgment dated 11.03.2010 passed by JMIC, Gohana, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has submitted that the accused is facing trial for the last more than 8 years and 9 months. He has already undergone incarnation for a period of about two months as he is in custody since 09.08.2011. So prayer has been made for reduction of sentence.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
The occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place on 08.01.2002 and since then the petitioner is facing trial. The petitioner has already undergone incarnation for about two months out of the substantive sentence of four months. The injuries were not found to be grevious as the accused has been convicted only under Section 337 IPC and not under Section 338 IPC.
Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner stands reduced to the period CRR NO. 1868 OF 2011(O&M) -5- already undergone by him. However, he is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the injured namely Parkash Chand. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, on deposit of Rs.10,000/- before the trial Court, in case not required in any other case. The said amount be disbursed to the injured.
Disposed of.
OCTOBER 04, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE