Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
110 CRR-1005-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:16.01.2023
Parwinder Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Khaira, DAG, Punjab.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This revision is filed by petitioner being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 03.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib in criminal appeal bearing CNR No.PB-FG-01-000427-
2018 vide which the appeal filed by him, challenging the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2018 of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib in case FIR No.31 dated
16.02.2017 registered at Police Station Sirhind under Section 279 & 304-A
of IPC, was dismissed.
As per prosecution case on 15.02.2017 complainant Lakhbir
Singh was following the motorcycle of his nephew Kuldeep Singh @ Jharia
bearing registration No.PB-23K-3884. As they reached near the grain market
main service road and were about to cross the road towards Bhatti Chowk at
about 02:20 p.m., truck bearing registration No.PB-11-BY-7174 being
driven by the petitioner-accused in rash and negligent manner came at very
high speed and struck against the motorcycle of Kuldeep Singh, who was
1 of 5
CRR-1005-2022 (O&M)
seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital but was declared dead. On the
statement of Lakhbir Singh, FIR was registered. After necessary
investigation petitioner was put to trial on the charges under Section 279 &
304A of the IPC. After recording evidence produced by the prosecution,
statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing both the
sides, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the conviction under Section 279 &
304A of the IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of 420,000/- under
Section 304A of the IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6
months and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- under Section 279 of the IPC. Default
sentences were also announced. Both the substantive sentences were directed
to run concurrently. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide impugned judgment dated
03.03.2022.
It is contended that both the Courts below fell in error and did
not apply the mind to the fact that no independent witness was joined by the
prosecution because as per PW-1 Lakhbir Singh, lot of people had gathered
there; that no test identification parade of the petitioner was carried out; that
PW-1 Lakhbir Singh admitted in cross-examination that he was at home on
the date of accident; that there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR; that
there is alteration in the documents prepared by the Investigating Officer;
that mechanic who conducted mechanical examination was not examined
and that negligence on the part of the petitioner was not proved.
Apart from all above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2022 i.e. for the last more than 10
Page No. 2 out of 5 pages
2 of 5
CRR-1005-2022 (O&M)
months and that he may be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already
undergone by him.
I have considered submissions of both the sides and perused the
record.
The conviction recorded by learned Trial Court is based on the
evidence on record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also properly
appreciated the evidence and there is no reason to disturb the finding of
conviction as recorded by the Courts below.
However, it is not in dispute that petitioner is in custody since
03.03.2022 i.e. the day when his appeal was dismissed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge and he was taken into custody. Thus custody period exceeds
10 months. In State of Punjab V. Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR
(Criminal) 495, while setting aside the order of the High Court reducing the
sentence imposed upon the accused from one year to the period already
undergone by him i.e. 24 days, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as
under:
"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. 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,
Page No. 3 out of 5 pages
3 of 5
CRR-1005-2022 (O&M)
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 the present case petitioner has already undergone sentence of
more than 10 months. Accident had taken placed way back in 2017 and thus
petitioner has faced agony for the last about 6 years.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances as above,
though the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 & 304A IPC is
maintained but the order of sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. Petitioner is directed to
deposit the fine as imposed by the trial Court within a period of 15 days on
receipt of the certified copy of this order. After the deposition of the said fine
of ₹21,000/- (if not deposited earlier), the same shall be paid as
compensation to the legal heirs of deceased on identification. It is made clear
that in case of failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount, the
Page No. 4 out of 5 pages
4 of 5
CRR-1005-2022 (O&M)
revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
The petitioner in custody is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other case. With this order, the revision
stands disposed of.
January 16, 2023 ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
Neetika Tuteja JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Page No. 5 out of 5 pages
5 of 5
