Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puran Chand vs State Of Punjab on 24 February, 2016
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1419-2015 (O & M)
Date of decision:24.02.2016
Puran Chand ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.D. Anand, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
***
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioner Puran Chand had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, under sections 279 and 337 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:-
Offence Sentence
279 IPC To undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of
`500/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one week.
337 IPC To undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of `500/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one week.
The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 13.04.2015.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that SUKHPREET KAUR 2016.02.29 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1419-2015 (O & M) ::2::
he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He states that he is conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus:
On 30.07.2011 at around 09.45 a.m., the complainant- injured was going on his scooter bearing No.PB-08V-2818, when he reached near Military Barrier opposite Mandir, a white car bearing No.PB-08BS-8898, came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn struck against his scooter. The kick of his scooter stuck into the tyre of car. Due to this, the complainant received multiple injuries on his person. Later he came to know the name of driver as Puran Chand son of Balbir (petitioner herein). On this statement, FIR was registered by the police. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the trial court.
Finding prima facie case under sections 279 and 337 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses.
The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on
SUKHPREET KAUR
2016.02.29 15:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRR-1419-2015 (O & M) ::3::
record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. The accused, however, did not examine any witness in his defence.
On the basis of the evidence on record, learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charges under sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate court has also rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed.
Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a first offender and a poor person. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re- evaluated.
Learned State counsel has placed on record affidavit of Paramjit Singh Sandhu, PPS, Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar at Kapurthala, according to which the petitioner had undergone actual custody of 01 month and 17 days as on 23.02.2016. SUKHPREET KAUR 2016.02.29 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1419-2015 (O & M) ::4::
Incident occurred 04 years ago in which the petitioner was found guilty of offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Stand of the State is that in case this court intends to maintain the conviction of the petitioner and reduce the quantum of sentence to that already undergone, State would have no reason to stand in the way of such orders.
Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, amount of ` 1 lac deposited by the petitioner before the trial court pursuant to order dated 29.05.2015, be disbursed to the complainant.
A report in this regard be submitted within one month. As complainant has been compensated in exercise of powers under Section 357 (4), fine imposed by the court below stands waived. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) 24.02.2016 JUDGE sukhpreet SUKHPREET KAUR 2016.02.29 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document