Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munish vs State Of Haryana on 1 August, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
CRR-4726-2016 -1-
(292)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-4726-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.08.2024
MUNISH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate
for the petitioner and
Mr. Arnav Sood, Amicus Curiae
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar,
vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 14/16.12.2015 passed by the Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts behind the instant prosecution are that on dated
17.07.2012, a VT information regarding an accident having taken place at
Kalanaur road, near JLN canal was received at Police Station Beri. Upon this,
HC Rajesh Kumar reached at Civil Hospital, Jhajjar where the dead-body of
one Ramphal son of Chandgi Ram was lying in the mortuary. HC Rajesh
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
Kumar came across Roshanlal son of the deceased Ramphal, who got
recorded his statement and the same is as under:-
"On dated 17.07.2012, he was present in his agricultural fields,
near the JLN canal. His father Ramphal son of Chandgi Ram
was coming to the agricultural fields, on his motorcycle of
make TVS Star and bearing registration number HR14C-5626,
at approximately 7.00 AM. At that time, he (Roshanlal) was
present on the road. Ramphal was coming on the correct side of
the road and reached near their agricultural fields. Suddenly, a
Maruti car of silver colour of model Ritz, came driven in a rash
and negligent manner and hit straight into the motorcycle of
the father of complainant. The collision was so severe that the
motorcycle of the father of complainant was dragged to a
considerable distance and the father of complainant also
received serious injury. The driver of the car abandoned the
car and fled away from the place of occurrence. Upon notice,
the temporary registration number of the offending car came to
be known HR99MP[T]-4069. The complainant arranged a
private vehicle and carried his father to Civil Hospital, Beri,
where Ramphal succumbed to the injuries. Legal action was
called against the offending driver of above car".
3. Upon this, a ruqa was sent for registration of FIR. Investigation
proceeded. The place of occurrence was inspected and a site-plan with
correct marginal notes was prepared. Inquest report regarding the dead-body
of Ramphal was prepared. Post-mortem examination of the dead-body of
Ramphal was got conducted. Photographs of the place of occurrence were
taken. Relevant medical record was taken into police custody. Statements of
witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The accused was
arrested. The offending vehicles along with relevant documents were taken
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
into police custody. After completion of the necessary formalities, the final
report under section 173 Cr.P.C was presented before the Court for initiation
of trial.
4. A prima-facie case for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was made out against the accused. So, the
accused was accordingly charge-sheeted by the learned Predecessor of
undersigned, on 29.01.2013, whereby the accused did not plead guilty and
claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses
namely, Dr. Mandal Manish, Krishan Kumar, Bhagat Singh, Roshanlal,
Manjeet, Balwan Singh, Rajender Singh, Dharmpal, Rajesh Kumar and
Surender Kumar.
6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein
he denied the accusations against him and opted to lead defence evidence but
did not.
7. On conclusion of the Trial, the petitioner came to be convicted
and sentenced by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar as
under:-
Sr. Under Sentence Fine In default
No. Sections
1. 279 IPC RI for 06 months -- --
2. 304-A IPC RI for 01 ½ years Rs.2000/- Imprisonment for
01 month
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Jhajjar and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 06.12.2016.
9. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned judgments of convictions were liable to be set aside as the same
were based on conjectures and surmises without proper appreciation of the
evidence on record. The complainant had been introduced as an eye-witness
despite not having been at the scene. The medical evidence was contrary to
the ocular account. He, therefore contends that the impugned judgments were
liable to be set aside and the petitioner ought to be acquitted of the charges
framed against him.
11. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
complainant/Roshanlal (PW4) has clearly deposed as to how the accident
took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The
medical evidence of PW1-Dr. Mandal Manish was consistent with the ocular
account. The mechanic reports did not leave any doubt that accident had
taken place. Therefore, no fault could be found with the judgment of the Trial
Court and the Lower Appellate Court convicting the present petitioner and
the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the
record.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
13. A perusal of the deposition of complainant/Roshanlal (PW4)
showed that he has deposed in a consistent and believable manner. He has
explained in detail as to how the accident had taken place on account of the
rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The version of the complainant
finds corroboration from the medical evidence of PW1-Dr. Mandal Manish
who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. The mechanic reports
(Ex.PW1/A) pertaining to the Ritz Car bearing Registration
No.HR99MP[T]4069 consistent with the prosecution version of an accident
having been taken place.
14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no reason to
interfere with the well-reasoned judgments of the Trial Court dated
14/16.12.2015 as well as the Lower Appellate Court dated 06.12.2016.
Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.
15. As regards the imposition of sentence, this Court in the case of
Gurmukh Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRR-2168-2014, decided on
13.12.2023, held as under:-
"21. Thus two parallel threads are :
(a) Courts should normally avoid showing undue sympathy
to the accused by imposing inadequate sentence as the same
is harmful to the justice system; and
(b) The Supreme Court has repeatedly considered the fact
that ordeal of facing pangs of prolonged trial needs to be
considered while deciding adequacy of sentence in the
matters pertaining to offence punishable under Section 304-
A IPC. Where the accused has faced the prolonged trial
running into more than a decade before it is finally
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
concluded by the High Court or the Supreme Court and both
the Courts found that the victim needs to be compensated
adequately, the time spent in the lis by an accused and
compensation to the victim can form relevant considerations
for reduction in sentence.
22. In the present case the present revision is pending
consideration for last nine years. FIR relates to the year 2007.
The petitioner was granted suspension of sentence on
27.10.2014 after he expressed his readiness to compensate the
victim by paying Rs.1.00 lac. The aforesaid amount stands
paid. The question is, having paid compensation as per the
orders of this Court 9 years back, should the petitioner be
asked to go back behind bars? It is in these mitigating
circumstances that this Court finds it appropriate to follow the
orders passed by Apex Court in K. Jagdish's case (supra) as
the facts in the present case are almost similar to those before
the Apex Court. I may hastenly add here that the petitioner is
claimed to have paid compensation and neither the State nor
the victim has agitated against the order passed by this court
asking the petitioner to deposit compensation and granting
him suspension of sentence.
23. The petitioner is a first time offender and has no past
criminal record or antecedents. He is not reported to have ever
misused concession of bail/suspension of sentence. He has
undergone about 6 months out of substantive sentence of 1
year and has already faced protracted trial for last 16 years.
24. Taking into consideration all these facts cumulatively, the
substantive sentence of 1 year awarded to the petitioner by the
Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
(emphasis supplied)
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098420
16. In the instant case, the FIR pertains to the year 2012. The
petitioner who is of the age of about 34 years has undergone 01 months and
18 days of his substantive sentence of 01 year. He is ready and willing to
compensate the LRs of the deceased-Ramphal. Therefore, while upholding
the conviction, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner
as under:-
Sr. Under Sentence Fine In default of
No. Sections payment of fine
1. 279 IPC RI for 01 month -- --
and 18 days
(actual period of
custody
undergone by the
petitioner)
2. 304-A IPC RI for 01 month Rs.2,00,000/- RI 01 ½ Years
and 18 days
(actual period of
custody
undergone by the
petitioner)
17. The amount of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner
shall be disbursed to the LRs of the deceased as compensation.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
01.08.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
