Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpal vs State Of Punjab on 17 May, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision: 17.05.2013
Rajpal .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG Punjab.
*******
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.(oral) Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 06.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed with a modification in the term of sentence awarded under Section 338, IPC, from one year to eight month.
When the criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing at that time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not want to challenge the verdict of conviction recorded against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC. However, he submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was on higher side. Therefore, the notice of motion was issued for that limited purpose. CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M) 2
While deciding the issue, this Court deems it necessary to evaluate the facts to satisfy the conscience of this Court with regard to the verdict of guilt returned by both the Courts below. The counsel for the parties have agreed that let this criminal revision petition be finally disposed of at this stage.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant-Kulwant Singh informed the police that he was a shopkeeper and on 16.08.2004, he along with Inderjit Singh Ahluwalia was going towards Focal Point, Rajpura, on a scooter bearing registration No.PB-11-N-1847. His son, Gagandeep Singh, was also going ahead of them on another scooter bearing registration No.PB-11-P-0460. At about 11.45 AM, when they reached near ALCON Wire Factory, Rajpura, then a truck bearing registration No.HR-37-A-0130 came from the Food Factory side which was being driven rashly and negligently by petitioner Rajpal and hit against the scooter being driven by his son, Gagandeep Singh. Resultantly, left leg of Gagandeep Singh was badly damaged. He (Gagandeep Singh) received injuries on other parts of his body also. The injured was immediately shifted to the hospital but he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana. During the course of investigation, the injury found on the person of Gagandeep Singh was declared as grievous. Therefore, Section 338, IPC, was also added to the FIR which was initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337, IPC. After thorough investigation, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was presented before learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC, the charges were framed for the prosecution of the petitioner to which, he pleaded not guilty CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M) 3 and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Kulwant Singh Bedi, PW-2 Gagandeep Singh, PW-3 Inderjit Singh, PW-4 Dr. Manjit Singh, PW-5 HC Kaka Singh, PW-6 Devinder Singh, PW-7 Sukhchain Singh Bedi, and PW-8 C. Harbhajan Singh.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing on the file were put to the petitioner in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. However, no evidence in defence was led.
After hearing counsel for the parties, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, held the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and awarded the following sentences:-
Sr.No. Sections Sentence(R.I.) Fine In default(S.I)
1. 279, IPC 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month
2. 337, IPC 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month
3. 338, IPC 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner presented an appeal before the Court of Session which was ultimately dismissed with modification in the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338, IPC, reducing the same from one year to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months.
Still dissatisfied with the amelioration rendered by the Lower Appellate Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M) 4 present criminal revision petition.
PW-1 Kulwant Singh Bedi, i.e. the complainant, and PW-2 Gagandeep Singh (injured) have fully supported the prosecution version. Nothing material could be derived in favour of the petitioner from their cross-examination. The depositions of the eye-witnesses have been supported by the medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW-4 Dr. Manjit Singh. PW-5 HC Kaka Singh, the investigating officer has also deposed in consonance with the investigation conducted by him. The deposition of abovestated witnesses was further corroborated by the deposition of PW-6 Devinder Singh (a mechanic) who mechanically inspected the vehicles. PW-7 Sukhchain Singh Bedi is a photographer who had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence and PW-8 Constable Harbhajan Singh proved the recovery of the vehicles involved in the accident.
From the perusal of the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that the verdict of guilt returned by the Courts below is well based.
So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is first offender. He is neither required nor involved in any other case. He further submits that for the last approximately 9 years the petitioner is facing the agony of trial and appeal etc. He also contends that during the course of trial and appeal, the petitioner remained on bail but he did not misuse the said concession. He further submits that the petitioner is a married person and has a family to maintain. There is no other person except the petitioner to maintain his dependents. The learned counsel has CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M) 5 also brought to the notice of this Court that an amount of `6 lakhs was awarded to the injured by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He further submits that the petitioner is also ready to contribute some amount as compensation to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the State has produced the affidavit of Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, which is taken on record. Though she has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence of the petitioner, however, she agrees with the proposal of the petitioner to pay compensation to the injured-Gagandeep Singh.
Perusal of the affidavit produced by the learned counsel for the State reveals that applicant-appellant has suffered incarceration for 4 months and 25 days as on 1.05.2013. The affidavit further reveals that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case. The petitioner is a married man and has a family to maintain. There is no other earning member in his family. He is facing the agony of trial and appeal for the last about 9 years. During the course of trial and appeal, he remained on bail but the said concession was not misused by him. `6 lakhs has already been awarded as compensation to the injured by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, there is substance in the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner to extend some concession in the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner and as such the order of sentence is modified and the petitioner is ordered to undergo the following sentence:-
CRR No.219 of 2013(O&M) 6
Sr.No. Sections Sentence(R.I.) Fine In default(S.I)
1. 279, IPC 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month
2. 337, IPC 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month
3. 338, IPC 6 months Rs.1000/- 1 month All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
In addition to above, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of `50,000/- as compensation to injured-Gagandeep Singh. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the petitioner with learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura within one month of his release from the custody, in this case, failing which the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, shall enure. On deposit of the amount of compensation, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, wil issue a notice to the injured and disburse the amount of compensation to him in accordance with law.
With the above modification in the order of sentence, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
17.05.2013 [NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ] Diwaker Gulati JUDGE