Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2022
-1-
CRR-3390-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3390-2019 (O & M)
Date of decision: 17.03.2022
Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Varinder Basa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)
Custody certificate dated 16.03.2022, by way of
affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, has
been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record.
The petitioner was tried in case bearing FIR No.93
dated 12.10.2015, registered at Police Station Maqboolpura,
Amritsar, under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC. The Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide judgment and order of
sentence dated 05.01.2019, found the petitioner guilty for the
offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279, and sentenced
him as under:
Section Sentence
304-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
279 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
1 of 5
CRR-3390-2019
Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar,
which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2019.
Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present
revision petition.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner does not lay any challenge to the judgments of
conviction of the petitioner recorded by the courts below and for
that reason, the facts are not required to be reproduced here.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made
submissions only on the aspect of sentence on which this Court
has heard him as well as the learned State counsel.
While making submissions qua the quantum of
sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is a first offender; that he has no shady past; that he
has been facing the agony of the trial since 2015; that he is the
only bread winning member of his family, and that his conduct
during the trial has been quite fair and bona fide and he has never
obstructed the course of trial and the appeal. The petitioner has
undergone the sentence of 01 year, 05 months and 16 days,
including the remissions of 03 months and 26 days. Under these
circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be
reduced to the one already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while
opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that the sentence awarded to the
petitioner is in proportion to the offence committed by him. The
2 of 5
CRR-3390-2019
petitioner does not deserve any leniency.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after a lucid examination of the record, this Court finds that both
the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the
petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. There is no
manifest error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts
below.
Thus, in my opinion, in view of the evidence on record,
there is no scope for any interference in the findings of the Courts
below, so far as the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC
is concerned. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is upheld.
However, the fact remains that the present FIR was
registered on 12.10.2015 and the petitioner has undergone the
actual sentence of 01 year, 01 month and 20 days. He has also
earned remissions of 03 months and 26 days.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs.
Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 495, while setting aside
the order of the High Court, thereby reducing the sentence
imposed upon the accused i.e. 01 year to the period already
undergone by him i.e. 24, days, awarded the sentence of six
months to the accused-respondent therein. It was held as under:-
"17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent
driving has been established. This court has been
constantly noticing the increase in number of road
accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers
have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving
in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or
driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there
are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the
centre stage.
3 of 5
CRR-3390-2019
The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all
respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility,
graduated himself to harbour the idea that he can escape
from the substantive sentence by payment of
compensation. Neither the law nor the court that
implements the law should ever get oblivious of the fact
that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims
who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse
than death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous
phenomenon in an orderly society. Young age cannot be a
plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or
the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich
and the luxuriously temperamental. Needless to say, the
principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures
but there are occasions when the deterrence is an
imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case.
In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to
say that the High Court has been swayed away by the
passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of
compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24
days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy.
It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the
crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and "queen of
virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only
the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It
ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system.
In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the
trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate
court should be reduced to six months."
In view of the above, the prayer of the learned counsel
for the petitioner for reducing the petitioner's sentence to the
period already undergone, can be considered and allowed in terms
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh
Bakshi's case (supra).
In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of
the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the substantive
sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one
already undergone by him. The fine imposed upon the petitioner
along with its default clause, under the aforesaid sections, is
maintained. Apart from that, the petitioner is directed to pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of
deceased, within a period of two months from today. It is made
4 of 5
CRR-3390-2019
clear that in case, the compensation amount is not paid within the
time stipulated, the present revision petition shall be deemed to
have been dismissed. The petitioner be released forthwith if not
required in any other case, and further subject to the payment of
fine, if not already paid.
Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
17.03.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
