Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Singh @ Jassa vs State Of Punjab on 20 December, 2022
CRR-2046-2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
250
CRR-2046-2022 (O&M)
` Decided on :20.12.2022
Jasvir Singh @ Jassa
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. F. S. Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment
and the sentence awarded dated 27.05.2019 vide which the petitioner
has been convicted as under:-
Name of Offence under which Sentence imposed upon the
accused the accused is convict
convicted
Jasvir Singh 279 Rigorous imprisonment for six
months and fine Rs.500/- in
default of payment of fine,
convict shall further undergo
RI for 15 days.
304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for
two years and fine Rs.1,000/-
in default of payment of fine,
convict shall further undergo
RI for one month.
However, all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Challenge is also to the judgment dated 18.07.2022 vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the sentence
1 of 6
was upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he
does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioner but would be
satisfied if a lenient view is taken with respect to the sentence, which
has been awarded to the petitioner. In this regard, it has been submitted
that the incident is of the year 2014 and the petitioner has suffered the
agony of trial/appeal/revision for all these years and the petitioner was
granted bail/suspension of sentence but he has never misused the said
concession. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread
winner in the family and has two minor children and old parents. It is
further submtited that the petitioner has already undergone actual
sentence after conviction of 5 months and 1 day and has also earned
remission of 16 days and thus, making the total undergone sentence
including remission to be 5 months and 17 days.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon order of the Coordinate Bench in CRR-1931
of 2010 decided on 23.07.2019 titled as Chander Bhan Vs. State of
Haryana where the petitioner therein had actually undergone sentence
of 04 months and 07 days in a case registered under Sections 279 and
304-A IPC, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had suspended the
sentence by imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi,
reported as 2015 (2) RCR (Criminal), 495 was also considered. Further
reliance has been placed upon a judgment of another Coordinate Bench
2 of 6
of this Court in CRR-4830-2016 decided on 08.03.2017 titled as
"Balwinder Singh @ Binder Vs. State of Punjab" in which case also
the sentence was reduced to four months in a case of conviction under
Section 279/304-A IPC where rigorous imprisonment was awarded for
02 years. In the said case also, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Saurabh Bakshi's case (supra) was considered. Further,
reliance has also been placed upon judgment titled as Jaswant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, CRR-1239-2012 decided on 29.08.2019, reported
as 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 163, wherein after taking into
consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh
Bakshi's case (supra), the sentence was reduced to the custody already
undergone. It is further contended that the fine in the present case has
already been deposited by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted
that the judgments of both the Courts below are well reasoned and have
been passed after taking into consideration the entire evidence and the
material on record. However, the fact with respect to the custody of the
petitioner, as well as him having never misused the concession of
bail/suspension of sentence has not been disputed by the learned State
counsel.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paperbook.
Brief background in the present case is that the present FIR
was registered on the statement of Randhir Singh @ Dhir Mann on the
3 of 6
allegation that on 23.11.2014 at about 01:00 PM in the area of GT
Road, Patiala, the present petitioner was driving a truck bearing No. PB-
11AP-6875 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of
Malkeet Singh @ Meeta and also damaged motorcycle and after the
registration of the FIR, the police party reached the spot and the case
property was taken into police possession and after the investigation
was complete, challan was presented and charges were framed against
the petitioner. The prosecution had examined the following witnesses in
support of its case:-
PW-1 Pawan Kumar
PW-2 Dr. Jaskaval
PW-3 HC Jagmail Singh
PW-4 ASI Rajinder Kumar
PW-5 ASI Pardeep Kumar
PW-6 Randhir Singh
PW-7 HC Didar Singh
After recording of the said evidence, the statements of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Learned trial Court
after considering the entire evidence and the documents on record, had
convicted the petitioner as has been detailed hereinabove. The appeal
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge
vide judgment dated 18.07.2022. No illegality or perversity has been
pointed out in the judgments of the Courts below. Moreover, in the
present case, PW-6 Randhir Singh was the eye witness who had fully
supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated the fact that it was
4 of 6
on account of rash and negligent driving of the present petitioner that
the accident had taken place and on account of that, the deceased had
suffered injuries. PW-2 Dr. Jaskaval , Senior Resident, Government
Medical College and hospital, Patiala who had conducted the
postmortem of Malkeet Singh proved the postmortem report as
Ex.PW2/A. PW-1 Pawan Kumar, photographer, proved the photographs
Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C. PW-3 HC Jagmail Singh has deposed that
apart from the motorcycle, even the truck alongwith documents and
driving license of the petitioner were taken into police possession vide
memo Ex. PW-3/B. PW-4 ASI Rajinder Kumar had deposed that on
24.11.2014 he had mechanically checked the truck bearing No. PB-
11AP-6875 and proved on record its mechanical test report as
Ex.PW4/A and PW4/B. PW-5 ASI Pardeep Kumar as well as PW-7 HC
Didar Singh have also fully supported the case of the prosecution.
Nothing has come out in the cross examination so as to cause a dent in
the case of the prosecution and thus the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 279, 304 A IPC is upheld.
As far as the sentence which has been awarded to the
petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that keeping in view
the fact that the incident in the present case is of the year 2014 and the
petitioner has never misused the concession of bail/suspension of
sentence and also the fact that the petitioner is the sole bread winner in
the family and has 2 minor children and there is no one to support them
and the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 5 months
5 of 6
and 1 day after conviction and has also earned remission of 16 days and
thus, making the total undergone sentence including the remission as 5
months and 17 days and also in view of the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the sentence ordered
to the petitioner is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of 2 years to
rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.
The same would however be subject to the petitioner
depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Court of the concerned
Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court, Rajpura, within a period of two months
from today. The learned concerned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court,
Phillaur is directed to issue notice to the legal representatives of the
deceased after the said amount is deposited by the petitioner so that the
said amount can be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased.
With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that in case the said amount of Rs.50,000/- is not
deposited within a period of two months from today, the present petition
shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
20.12.2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
