Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008240
2024:PHHC:008240
Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2008
Date of decision : January 15, 2024
Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Jashandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab
KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL)
1. The instant revision petition is directed against the
judgment of conviction, and order of sentence dated 19.7.2004, as
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar vide
which, the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and, was sentenced as under:-
U/s 279 IPC RI for a period of six months.
U/s 338 IPC RI for a period of one year and fine of Rs
1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo RI for 15 days
2. Having aggrieved with the judgment and order (supra),
the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. The same was dismissed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, vide judgment
dated 15.3.2008.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008240
2024:PHHC:008240
3. In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the basis
of statement of complainant Pritam Sachdeva, in which, he has
stated that on dated 10.10.2000, at about 3.45 PM, he along with
his mother Sushma Sachdeva were going on Kinetic Honda scooter
bearing registration No. HR-03-4404 from Rajpura to their House at
Manimajra. When they reached near T-Point Bhobat (Zirakpur),
then a truck bearing registration No. PJN-9391, being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn, was
overtaking the complainant, and suddenly turned the said truck
towards left side. The complainant while making an endeavour to
stop the scooter, came into collision with the said truck, as a result
of which his left leg got entangled with the Kinetic Honda, and the
rear tyre of the said truck got ran over the complainant's leg, and his
left leg suffered injuries and got fractured.
4. The investigation was carried out, and the final report
qua the petitioner was filed. Charges were framed against him
under Sections 279, 338 IPC.
5. The prosecution, in order to establish charges against
the accused person, examined PW-1. Karam Chand (Mechanic),
PW-2 Pritam Sachdeva (Complainant), PW-3 Sushma Sachdeva
(Eye witness), PW-4 SI-Amarpreet Singh (Investigating Officer), PW-
5-Om Parkash, Superintendent, Registeration Licencing Authority,
PW-5 Dr. Samir Aggarwal. However, no witness was examined in
defence by the accused.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008240
2024:PHHC:008240
6. After examining the entire evidence, the learned trial
court concerned held the petitioner guilty of the charges, framed
against him and sentenced as aforesaid.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset
submits that he does not want to address arguments on merits of
the instant petition. However, considering the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances, he made a prayer to reduce the
sentence of the petitioner as imposed by the learned trial court
concerned, and was also upheld by the learned appellate court
concerned, to the period already undergone by the present
petitioner. He further submits that the present case was registered
in the year 2000, and it is almost 23 years that the petitioner is
facing the agony of the pendency of the present criminal
proceedings. Further, at the time of commission of offence, the
petitioner was of young age and now he is well settled in his life,
having grown up children, to look after and he has not committed
any criminal offence since then, which further proves that the
petitioner has mend his ways, and now is very much settled in the
society. The petitioner remained enlarged on bail during the
pendency of the present revision, and has never misused the
concession of the same.
8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while
opposing the asked for relief, filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The custody certificate of the petitioner reveals that he
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008240
2024:PHHC:008240
has undergone RI for 04 months 14 days out of total sentence of
one year imposed upon him.
9. This Court finds merit in the prayer as made by the
counsel for the petitioner, qua reduction of sentence. Considering
the age of the petitioner at the time of offence, and other
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as explained above,
while maintaining balance between deterrence against crime viz-a-
viz re-formative approach of punishment, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the period of sentence, as imposed upon the
petitioner, to the period already undergone by him..
10. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is partly
allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 19.7.2004, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, and judgment
dated 15.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Rupnagar, are upheld. However, the sentence imposed upon the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
( KULDEEP TIWARI )
January 15, 2024 JUDGE
'tiwana'
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
Whether Reportable ? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008240
4 of 4
