Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaibir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037198
2024:PHHC:037198
CRR-4669-2016 (O& M) ::1::
249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-4669-2016 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
Jaibir Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal
whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04/05.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Karnal, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Sanjeet
made a complaint to the police that while he and his brother Amit (deceased)
were travelling in a bus, the driver of the bus suddenly turned the same at a
high speed due to which his brother-Amit fell down on the road and was run
over by the rear tyre of the bus causing his death.
3. On conclusion of the investigation, the report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented under Sections 279/304-A IPC and on
culmination of the Trial, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037198
2024:PHHC:037198
CRR-4669-2016 (O& M) ::2::
vide judgment dated 04/05.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class as under:-
Name of Section Sentence Fine imposed In default of
convict payment
Jaibir Singh 279 IPC (SI) 03 months Rs.500/- (SI) 15 days
months
304-A IPC (RI) 01 year Rs.1000/- (SI) one month
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 28.04.2016.
5. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts
below had failed to appreciate that there was no evidence to prove that the
petitioner had been driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No
test identification parade was held and the identification of the petitioner for
the first time in Court was valueless. No independent witness was joined by
the prosecution despite the place of incident being a public place. The
defence version as set-up in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had not
been considered in its proper perspective. He, therefore, contends that the
judgments of conviction were liable to be set aside and the petitioner ought
to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the petitioner was duly named by the complainant-Sanjeet (PW-2). The
vehicle number was also disclosed by the complainant. As the identity of
the petitioner was not disputed, the question of a test identification parade
never arose. The photographs also clearly revealed the fact that the death
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037198
2024:PHHC:037198
CRR-4669-2016 (O& M) ::3::
had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver/petitioner Jaibir Singh. The post-mortem report also bore
testimony to the fact that the deceased had suffered serious injuries leading
to his death on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the
petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the judgments sought to be
challenged could not be faulted and the present petition was liable to be
dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. A perusal of the testimony of PW-2/Sanjeet (complainant)
would show that he has clearly stated that on 24.01.2009 he and his brother-
Amit (deceased) were travelling in a private bus bearing No.HR/45A/1671.
On account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Amit fell
down from the bus and was crushed under the rear tyre of the bus leading to
his death. The name of the petitioner and the vehicle number are duly
mentioned in the FIR. Once the identification of the petitioner and the
vehicle has been established, the question of a test identification parade does
not arise. Further, the post-mortem conducted by PW-1/Dr. Munish Paruthi
and the photographs of the place of the occurrence also clearly establish that
the deceased suffered serious injuries leading to his death on account of the
rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere
with the well-reasoned judgments of the Trial Court and the Lower
Appellate Court. Therefore, the present revision petition stands dismissed.
11. As regards the imposition of the sentence, it may be relevant to
mention here that the occurrence pertains to the year 2009 and almost 15
years have elapsed since then. A perusal of the custody certificate dated
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037198
2024:PHHC:037198
CRR-4669-2016 (O& M) ::4::
12.03.2024 would reveal that the petitioner is a first-time offender with no
other case registered against him. He has undergone total custody of 10
months and 11 days of his substantive sentence of 01 year. Therefore, while
upholding the judgment of conviction, I deem it appropriate to modify the
sentence and reduce it to the period (10 months 11 days) already undergone
by him.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
March 14, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037198
4 of 4
