Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tehal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 30 August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1225 of 2013
Date of Decision : 30.08.2013
Tehal Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG Haryana.
R.P. Nagrath, J.
The instant revision was filed to challenge the concurrent finding of conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The petitioner was driver of the offending bus No. HR-64- 0546 on 19.05.2006 and because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle that Virsa Singh died. The petitioner was awarded punishment by the trial Court as under:-
Under Section 279 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for six months Under Section 304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year plus fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
3. Appeal against the judgment of conviction was dismissed on 20.02.2013. When this revision was listed on 10.05.2013, this Court passed the following order:-
Jitender Kumar 2013.09.05 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
"Heard.
Conviction of the petitioner Tehal Singh is well founded. His name was mentioned in the FIR itself, along with registration number of the bus, which he was driving rashly and negligently resulting in accident leading to the death of Virsa Singh. Both eye- witnesses Major Singh and Pargat Singh have supported the prosecution case. There is no reason why they would falsely implicate the accused and would depose falsely against him. Even the petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has not alleged any ground for his false implication nor led any evidence in defence. Both the courts below have analysed the evidence in detail and have come to concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is not shown to be suffering from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record so as to call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. There is no ground to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
Notice of motion re : quantum of sentence only for 24.07.2013."
4. Custody certificate dated 29.08.2013 has been placed on record by learned State counsel which shows that petitioner has undergone 6 months and 9 days of imprisonment, which is the post conviction period.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel.
6. The petitioner was driving a school bus and pedestrian Jitender Kumar 2013.09.05 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh on the road was hit by speeding bus. The petitioner was stated to be 55 years old and had been driving school bus for long period. There was no past conviction as per custody certificate.
7. Keeping in view the above factors, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 1 year to 10 months under Section 304-A IPC, whereas the punishment awarded under Section 279 IPC, which was to run concurrently with the sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC and the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court is maintained.
8. With the above modification of sentence, the revision is dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to all concerned for compliance.
August 30, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.09.05 10:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh