Kala Ram vs State Of Punjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 2959 P&H

CRR-297-2019 (O&M)                                                  -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

(210)
                                 CRR-297-2019 (O&M)
                                 Date of decision: - 12.10.2021

Kala Ram
                                                                  ....Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                .....Respondent



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI



Present:-     Ms. Aarti, Legal Aid Counsel
              for the petitioner.

              Ms. Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

                ****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

In the present criminal revision petition, the challenge is to

judgment dated 09.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Sunam, by which, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and

304-A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

maximum period of two years and also to judgment/order dated

05.12.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, by which,

the appeal of the petitioner against the order of conviction, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present

revision petition the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279 and

304-A of IPC, though he was not named in the FIR and only the

1 of 4

CRR-297-2019 (O&M) -2-

description of the driver was given. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further argues that as the identification parade was not carried out, the

prosecution of the petitioner and conviction raises a doubt whether he was

the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise the sentence, which

has been awarded to the petitioner, is not commensurate to the allegations

for which he has been convicted.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the trial

Court after appreciating all the facts convicted the petitioner for causing

death of a child, namely, Anshdeep Singh, who was only 6-7 years old

and was yet to enjoy his life, which was cut short by an irresponsible act

of the petitioner and the petitioner also injured the mother of the child,

namely, Harvinder Kaur. Learned State counsel further submits that the

petitioner was caught at the site by the bystanders and was later identified

by the complainant in the Court. Learned State counsel further submits

that as a young child has lost his life and a lady got injured by the

irresponsible act on the part of the petitioner, the sentence imposed by the

learned trial Court, which has been upheld by the learned lower Appellate

Court, is commensurate to the allegations proved against the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel

for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, though

the description of the driver was given. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has not been able to rebut the fact that the petitioner was caught at the site

2 of 4

CRR-297-2019 (O&M) -3-

of the accident and was later identified by the complainant during the

trial. That being so, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner that the

identification parade should have been carried out so as to establish the

identity of the driver of the offending vehicle. Facts and evidence on

record proves the identify of the petitioner as the driver of the offending

vehicle.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able

to point out, as to why, the complainant will falsely implicate the

petitioner and why, the false allegations will be alleged against the

petitioner of causing accident while driving vehicle bearing number

PB-13-M-6151. The accident of the said vehicle is not being denied by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and once the complainant has

identified the petitioner as the driver, who was caught at the site by the

bystanders, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner was not named in the FIR and no identification parade was

conducted to identify the accused driver, cannot be accepted and that too

in the present revision petition.

As far as prayer of the petitioner qua the sentence imposed is

concerned, the same needs no interference by this Court in this revision

petition especially in view of the fact that a young child of 6-7 years old,

who was yet to enjoy the life, which was cut short by an irresponsible and

negligent act on the part of the petitioner. Not only this, a young lady was

also hurt. That being so, nothing has been pointed out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner as to how the sentence imposed upon the

petitioner is not commensurate to the charges alleged and proven against

3 of 4

CRR-297-2019 (O&M) -4-

him, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.

Dismissed.

As the petitioner is on bail keeping in view the order dated

06.11.2019 passed by this Court, he is directed to surrender before the

authorities concerned within a period of one month from today. In case,

the petitioner does not surrender within the said period, the appropriate

action needed for securing his custody be initiated by the Jail

Superintendent of District Jail, Sangrur, so as to take him in custody for

undergoing the remaining sentence.

Application bearing CRM-4129-2019 stand disposed of

keeping in view the order passed in the main criminal revision petition.

                                    ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
October 12, 2021                             JUDGE
naresh.k

            Whether reasoned/speaking?               Yes
            Whether reportable?                      No




                                    4 of 4