Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1489 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 28 January, 2025

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370



CRR-715-2008(O&M)                                            #1#




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH.


                                                         CRR-715-2008(O&M)
                                                  Date of Decision:-28.01.2025


Pawan Kumar.
                                                                     ......Petitioner.
                                        Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr.
                                                                  ......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-    Mr. Keshavam Chaudhry, Advocate for the applicant/Petitioner.

             Mr. Viney Phogat, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

                                  ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The main petition was ordered to be listed for hearing vide

order dated 26.04.204, 10.05.2024 and lastly on 23.01.2025 whereas only

CRM-28782-2023 seeking permission for renewal of passport of the

petitioner is listed today.

An oral request has been made on behalf of the petitioner for

taking up the main petition on board for final hearing.

On request of Counsel for the petitioner, the main petition is

ordered to be taken up on board today and is being heard on merits.

CRR-715-2008(O&M)

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the

judgment dated 08.04.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby

the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370

CRR-715-2008(O&M) #2#

dated 27/28.01.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula has

been dismissed.

2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on

15.06.2002. The judgment of conviction was passed on 27/28.01.2006 by

the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula. The Appeal filed against the

order of conviction was dismissed on 08.04.2008 by the Sessions Judge,

Panchkula. The instant revision petition was filed on 10.04.2008 and has

come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 22 years from the date of

registration of the FIR.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Parkash who

was labourer by profession, alongwith Sat Pal was going to Pyarewala brick

kiln for labour work on 15.6.2002. The uncle of the complainant namely

Bant Ram was also coming from the side of village Gadhi Kotaha. When

Bant Ram after talking to them, started moving towards Vill.Gadhi Kotaha,

a Maruti van came from the side of Raipur Rani at a fast speed and in rash

and negligent manner and without blowing any horn and hit his uncle Bant

Ram due to which the head of Bant Ram struck against the road. They raised

an alarm and then the van driver stopped his van at some distance. They took

Banta Ram to the hospital Naraingarh in the offending van. At about 10.30

P.M., the driver of the van went away from the hospital after leaving them

there. The number of the van was CHO1V-8025 and name of the driver was

Pawan Kohli. Thereafter, his uncle Bant Ram succumbed to his injuries after

one hour. On the basis of this information, the FIR under section 279 and

304A IP was registered. The matter was investigated. Post mortem of the

deceased was got conducted. The Maruti van was taken into police

possession. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented in

the court for trial.

                                          2 of 7

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370



CRR-715-2008(O&M)                                            #3#

3. Thereafter, charge under section 279 and 304-A IPC was

framed against the accused/petitioner to which he did not plead guilty and

claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Parkash Chand

complainant PW-1, Satpal PW-2, J.S.Vagehra, Om Parkash PW-4, Dr.

Naveen Garg PW-5, C.Krishan Kumar PW-6 and ASI Kehar Singh PW-7.

5. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313

Cr.P.C. in which the incriminating material was put to him. He denied the

same and pleaded false implication. No evidence was lead in defence.

6. Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be

convicted and sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Panchkula vide judgment and order of sentence dated 27/28.01.2006 as

under:-

Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of Section payment of fine 304-A IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.2000/- SI for 02 Months 279 IPC RI for 06 Months Rs.500/- SI for 01 Month

Both the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

7. The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be

dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide judgment dated

08.04.2008.

8. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the

present petition.

9. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the

sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated

09.05.2008.

10. The counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that the

judgments of conviction are based on conjectures and surmises. There was

no evidence of rash and negligent driving. The prosecution witnesses were

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370

CRR-715-2008(O&M) #4#

discrepant in material particulars. The number of the vehicle was not clear.

In addition, he contends that in case this Court was to come to a finding that

the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, then

keeping in view the fact that the occurrence was of the year 2002 and the

case had come up for final hearing now after a gap of 22 years, the

accused/petitioner may be released on probation subject to payment of

compensation.

11. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed a custody

certificate of the accused/petitioner dated 28.11.2024 as well as Status report

by way of affidavit of Mr. Surender singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Panchkula in the Court today, which are taken on record. He

contends that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the

culpability of the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses had deposed

consistently as to the manner in which the occurrence had taken place.

There were no discrepancies in their statements as has been sought to be

argued. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.

12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the

record.

13. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in this case in

which PW-1 Parkash Chand complainant specifically deposed that vehicle

No.8025 came and hit his uncle Bant Ram deceased and proved his

statement Ex.PW-1/A in which the number of the vehicle is mentioned as

CHO1V-8025 of red colour. The prosecution examined PW-6 C.Krishan

Kumar who deposed that on 19.6.2000 accused Pawan Kumar came to the

police station in Maruti Van NO. CHO1V-8025 alongwith documents and

proved memo Ex.PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/C. The IO also proved that memo

Ex. PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/C were prepared and the documents of the van

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370

CRR-715-2008(O&M) #5#

were taken into police possession. The argument that number of the vehicle

was not narrated by the complainant at the time of his statement, is not

sustainable when other witnesses examined by the prosecution stated about

the number of the Maruti Van being CH01V-8025 which was taken into

police possession by the police.

14. PW.5 Dr. Naveen Garg proved MLR Ex-PW-5/A and post

mortem of deceased Bant Ram as EX.PW-5/B and inquest report Ex. PW-

2/B. So the death of Bant Ram stands established due to injuries caused in

the accident. The statement of complainant Parkash Chand was recorded in

court on 9.8.2003 and he specifically deposed that one year earlier they were

going towards Pyarewala brick kiln, then a Van driven by Pawan Kumar

caused this accident and Bant Ram and he was brought by accused/petitioner

Pawan Kumar in his van to a hospital at Naraingarh where Bant Ram died

and he made complaint Ex. PW-1/A.

15. From the statement of the complainant as well as other

witnesses examined by the prosecution, it stands established beyond doubt

that accused Pawan Kumar drove vehicle no.CHO1V-8025 on 15.6.2002 in

rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety

of others and caused the death of Banta Ram.

16. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no infirmity in

the judgment of conviction and therefore, the present petition stands

dismissed.

17. As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out

that this Court in Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRR No.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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370

CRR-715-2008(O&M) #6#

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 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.

25. Petition is disposed off, accordingly."

18. Admittedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2002 and as

many as 22 years have passed ever since then. A perusal of his custody

certificate would show that he does not have any criminal antecedents and is

a first time offender. Therefore, subject to the payment of the fine as

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012370

CRR-715-2008(O&M) #7#

imposed and payment of Rs.1 Lac as compensation to be paid to the legal

heirs of the deceased, the sentence of the accused/petitioner is reduced to the

period already undergone by him i.e. 01 month and 03 days.

19. The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above

terms.

                                                  ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                          JUDGE

January 28, 2025
Vinay
             Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No
             Whether reportable                      Yes/No




                                         7 of 7