Gaurav Sidhu vs State Of Punjab

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16412 P&H
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gaurav Sidhu vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2024

                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123610




                   1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 13:28:50 :::
                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123610




CRR-2782-202                                                            2

conviction, however, some leniency may be shown, while awarding the

sentence to the petitioner. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner has

not challenged the judgment of conviction, still this Court is proceeding to

examine the evidence in the present case in the light of the settled canons of

law.

3.          The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the

statement made by Dalbir Singh. As per him, his brother Jaswant Singh

(deceased) had retired from army and had applied for the job of Security

Guard. On 05.05.2012, he along with his nephew, namely, Phulkamal Singh

was going on their motorcycle to Jalandhar for some personal work. His

brother Jaswant Singh (deceased) was also going on his motorcycle bearing

Registration No.PB08-BM-9687 to Jalandhar to appear in an interview for

the job of Security Guard. While returning from Jalandhar, he and his

nephew met Jaswant Singh at Bus Stand of Jandusingha and thereafter both

of them started for their village on their respective motorcycle. Jaswant

Singh (deceased) was driving his own motorcycle ahead of them and

complainant and his nephew were following him on the other motorcycle.

When they reached village Udesiyan, near the petrol pump, one Accent car

bearing registration No.PB10-AY-6077came from the front side on a very

high speed in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn, it

struck into the motorcycle of Jaswant Singh, due to which, Jaswant Singh

fell down on the road and was badly injured and his motorcycle was totally

damaged. After arranging the vehicle, Jaswant Singh was taken to Civil

Hospital, Adampur, whereas he was declared brought dead. The accident in

the present case had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the



                               2 of 6
            ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 13:28:51 :::
                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123610




CRR-2782-202                                                            3

driver of the Accent car, bearing registration No. PB10-AY-6077. The driver

of the said Accent Car was known as Gaurav Sidhu son of Surinder Singh.

4.          After completion of the investigation, the final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court. The charges under

Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC were framed against the petitioner and he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5.          In support of the charge, the prosecution examined four

witnesses, namely, Phulkamal Singh as PW-1, Jarnail Singh as PW-2, Dalbir

Singh as PW-3 (complainant) and Dr. Hardev Singh, MS Ortho Medical

Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar as PW-4. After examining the witnesses,

the evidence was closed in the present case.

6.          After the closure of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating

material was put to the accused in the shape of his statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had denied all the allegations and pleaded his

false implication in the case. The accused opted to lead defence evidence

and examined Baldev Raj as DW-1, Gurpreet as DW-2 and Baljit Kumar as

DW-3.

7.          In support of the charge, the prosecution had examined

complainant Dalbir Singh as PW-3, who had reiterated the averments made

in the FIR. The testimony of PW-3 Dalbir Singh was duly supported by PW-

1 Phulkamal Singh and he also supported the prosecution version. In order

to prove the investigation process, the prosecution examined Jarnail Singh as

PW-2, who proved his statement Ex.PB and receipt of dead body as Ex.PA.

The statements of witnesses were duly corroborated by the testimony of PW-

4 Dr. Hardev Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the

dead body of Jaswant Singh and had exhibited the post-mortem report as

                               3 of 6
            ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 13:28:51 :::
                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123610




CRR-2782-202                                                            4

Ex.PW4/A.     As per his deposition, the cause of death in the present case

was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs of

the body, i.e. brain and lungs which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary

course of nature.

8.          The accused/petitioner examined Baldev Singh as DW-1, who

stated that the Accent Car was parked near the petrol pump on the left side

on the Kacha Path and the petitioner was sitting in that car. In the meantime,

one person, who was driving his motorcycle in a very rash and negligent

manner came from the side of Jalandhar and had hit the car. Ultimately the

driver of the car was badly injured and later on he had expired. The

statement of DW-1 was duly supported by the testimonies of DW-2 Gurpreet

and DW-3 Baljit Kumar.

9.          I have carefully perused the evidence led by both the sides as

well as the findings recorded by the courts below.

10.         In the present case, no doubt, Dalbir Singh, PW-3 and

Phulkamal Singh, PW-1 were closely related to Jaswant Singh, deceased,

however, both the witnesses had submitted the version given by them to the

police immediately after the occurrence. Both the witnesses have been

searchingly cross-examined and this Court finds no reason to discard their

testimonies. Even the accused had examined three witnesses and alleged his

false implication in the present case. However, no reason has been assigned

as to why he was falsely involved in the present case. Apart from that, there

was no personal enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused

and both the prosecution witnesses had no reason to falsely involve the

petitioner in the present case. Further, the testimonies of PW-1 Phulkamal

and PW-3 Dalbir Singh were duly corroborated by the statement of PW-4 Dr.

                               4 of 6
            ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 13:28:51 :::
                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123610




CRR-2782-202                                                             5

Hardev Singh, who was examined by the prosecution to prove the post-

mortem report ExPW4/A and it was apparent that the injuries had been

suffered by the deceased in the accident caused by the petitioner.

11.          Even otherwise, this Court has carefully perused the findings

recorded by both the courts below and could not find any illegality or

perversity in both the impugned judgments. Both the courts below have

properly appreciated the evidence and had held discussion in detail on the

evidence led by the prosecution as well as defence. Thus, the impugned

judgment of conviction is ordered to be upheld.

12.          Now adverting to the sentence, the petitioner has been

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to

pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. During the course of hearing, the learned State

counsel has placed on record a custody certificate, which shows that the

present petitioner has already undergone more than 01 year and 09 months

of sentence out of total sentence of 02 years. This Court is also conscious of

the fact that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial/appeal for the last ore

than 12 years. The petitioner is stated to be sole bread winner of his family.

Further, he has been facing the agony of trial/appeal for the last more than

12 years and no purpose would be served by sending him behind bars, at this

stage. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of

justice would be suitably met, if his substantive sentence is reduced to the

one already undergone by him.

13.          Keeping in view the above discussion, the judgments of

conviction passed by the courts below are upheld, however, order of

sentence dated 08.03.2017 is modified to the extent that the substantive

sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below is reduced to the

                               5 of 6
            ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 13:28:51 :::
                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123610




CRR-2782-202                                                             6

period already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner may be released

forthwith from the custody, if not on bail and if not required in any other

case.

14.          With the above modification, the present appeal stands disposed

of, in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of, accordingly.




                                                      (N.S. SHEKHAWAT)
06.09.2024

JUDGE mks Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO Whether Reportable: YES / NO No specific road was assigned to him investigation 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 13:28:51 :::