Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 5642 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037914




                                                                   2024:PHHC:037914
Criminal Revision No. 3071 of 2009(O&M)                                        1

234
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                 Criminal Revision No. 3071 of 2009(O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: 13.03.2024

Bhupinder Singh
                                                                ........Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                ........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Sandeep Singh, DAG Punjab
                                   ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated

30.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali

whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2008

passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar Mohali in FIR

No. 157 dated 09.05.2002 under Sections 304-A/279 IPC registered at Police

Station Mohali has been upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under:-

Offence under                                    Sentence
Section
279 IPC             RI for three months
304-A IPC           RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which RI
                    for 10 days


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that on 09.05.2002, a wireless massage was

received from police station Phase-1, Mohali at Police Post Phase II Mohali

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037914

2024:PHHC:037914

regarding death of one Gurvinder Singh at P.G.I with CR. No. 282527 in some

accident. One Attar Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Dhaulpur, Police

Station, Batala made his statement before H.C. Sohan Singh on 09.05.2002.

The complainant stated in his statement that he was on leave for one month

being mechanic in Punjab Roadways Department. He came to village Daon to

meet his son-in- law Gurvinder Singh. On 08.05.2002, he and his son-in-law

Gurvinder Singh were proceeding from Phase II, Mohali to Chandigarh, on

motor cycle No. PB-11M-2226. Gurvinder Singh, as referred above, was driving

the above motor cycle and complainant Attar Singh was pillion rider on it. At

about 9.15 p.m. whey they reached at the crossing of Phase IX and X, a Bajaj

Chetak Scooter bearing No. PB-27-7010 of white color being driven by a Sikh

boy rashly and negligently at a fast speed without giving any dipper came there.

That the scooterist struck the scooter against the motor cycle of the complainant

and resultantly Gurvinder Singh sustained injuries on his head and face and

complainant also received minor injuries in this accident. The name of the

scooterist was ascertained as Bhupinder Singh son of Jagir Singh, resident of

village Bari, Police Station Sohana thereafter. The scooterist slopped away by

leaving his scooter at the place of accident. The complainant and Dalbir Singh

arranged the removal of injured to Government Medical College and Hospital,

Sector 32. Chandigarh where from he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. That

Gurvinder Singh died at 8 a.m. in the morning. The accident in question causing

death of Gurvinder Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of

Scooterist Bhupinder Singh. Head Constable Sohan Singh recorded the statement

of complainant and made his endorsement thereupon, whereupon the FIR of this

was registered at Police Station Mohali.

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037914

2024:PHHC:037914

3. On assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court

vide judgment and dated 17.09.2008 convicted and sentenced the petitioner-

accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the

petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court

which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2009.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing

the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2008 on merits and restricts

his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the

sentence already undergone by petitioner as Bhupinder Singh has already

undergone a period of 02 months and 16 days of custody. He further submits

that since his conviction, he has not been involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner

as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct

appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been upheld by the

learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

book with their able assistance.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a

three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of

sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and

maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence,

a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which

includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037914

2024:PHHC:037914

committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the

quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or

whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be

awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is

neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR

2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social

purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused

not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is

well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion

is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by

noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed

and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law

and the chances of reformation of the accused.

8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial

Court and the learned lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their

findings and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on

record. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the

judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer to quantum

of sentence qua the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

9. The FIR in the present case was instituted on 09.05.2002. The

petitioner has been facing protracted proceedings for almost 22 years and is not

involved in any other criminal activity after his conviction in the present case

and during the pendency of the present revision. Since his conviction, the

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037914

2024:PHHC:037914

petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life.

As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has

undergone more than two months of custody out of total sentence of 1 year in the

instant case.

10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the

interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 1 year awarded to

the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

11. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following

terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali confirming the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 17.09.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.

(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the petitioner is increased to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the increased amount of fine in the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE March 13, 2024 reena

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037914

5 of 5