Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033847
2024:PHHC:033847
234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-367-2011 (O & M)
Date of decision: 05.03.2024
KULDEEP SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 14.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Patiala dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.07.2009 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura in FIR No.158 dated 10.07.2001
registered under Sections 279, 304-A, 338, 337 IPC at Police Station-Banur.
The petitioner was sentenced as under:-
Under Section Sentence
279 & 337 IPC R.I for 3 months under each section.
304-A IPC R.I for 1 year and 9 months
2. The facts, in brief, are that the present case was registered on the
statement of the injured/complainant Balwinder Singh, wherein, it was stated
that the complainant along with 03 other persons was travelling in a car bearing
registration No.DL-5CA-0917, when a bus belonging to PRTC Bathinda Depot
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033847
CRR-367-2011 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:033847
came from the side and collided into the right side of his car. It was stated that
the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. Due to
the said impact, the car in which the complainant was travelling lost control
and further collided into a loaded tractor-trolley which was coming from the
opposite side. Allegedly, due to the accident, all 4 persons travelling in the said
car sustained injuries. Thereupon, they were taken to a hospital where one of
the co-passenger of the complainant died. It was stated that the entire accident
happened due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner Kuldeep Singh
who was driving the said offending bus. Upon the statement of the complaint,
the FIR (supra) was registered. On finding a prima facie case for the
commission of offences under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC, charges were
framed accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and was
ultimately convicted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that petitioner
is 55-year old and does not have any criminal antecedents and that he has been
facing agony of protracted trial for the last 24 years. Learned counsel for the
petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of
conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of
quantum of sentence to that of the release of the petitioners on probation of
good conduct. He also submits that the sentence of the petitioner was
suspended by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that he has no
objection to the restricted prayer qua the petitioner, so long as his conviction is
upheld. Upon asking, he submits that the petitioner has undergone a custody
period of 01 month and 25 days of custody as per the custody certificate placed
on record before this Court on 16.02.2024.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033847
CRR-367-2011 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:033847
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book with their able assistance.
6. Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower the
courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and
circumstances mentioned therein. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the
Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good
conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held
as under:-
"6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents
against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the
benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that
view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall
be released on probation of good conduct....."
7. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763speaking through Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul, has held as under:-
"6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its
amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on
probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to
imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and
rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of
society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life
is what is sought to be subserved."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033847
CRR-367-2011 (O & M) 4 2024:PHHC:033847
8. In view of the above, the judgment dated 13.07.2009passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura as well as the judgement dated
14.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, the
conviction of the petitioner was affirmed, are upheld. However, having regard
for the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, this court is inclined
to give him the benefit of probation of good conduct.
9. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction and sentence
imposed on the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner be released on
probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with a
surety of the like amount, and on further furnishing an undertaking to keep the
peace and good behaviour for a period of two years, to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial court.
10. The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the concerned
Probation Officer(s) during the aforesaid period. It is further directed that if the
petitioner fails to comply with the said directions or commits breach of the
undertaking given by him, he shall be called upon to undergo the remaining
period of sentence imposed upon him in the present case.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands allowed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 05, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033847
4 of 4
