Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR-661-2007(O&M)
Date of Decision:-13.01.2025
Gurmit Singh.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Dolly Sharma, Advocate
Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed impugning the
judgment dated 05.04.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the
appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.01.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot has
been dismissed.
2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on
04.02.2001. The judgment of conviction was passed on 06.01.2007 by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. The Appeal filed against
the order of conviction was dismissed on 05.04.2007 by the Sessions Judge,
Faridkot. The instant revision petition was filed on 16.04.2007 and has
come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 23 years from the date of
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #2#
registration of the FIR.
3. None was appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the last two
dates of hearing and similar was the situation today also. Ms. Dolly Sharma,
Advocate PH/5749/2002 present in Court is hereby appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the petitioner on payment of fee as
per norms.
4. As per the prosecution version the complainant Gurtej Singh,
his brother Hardev Singh, since deceased and Jagjit Kaur wife of Hardev
Singh were going towards Kotkapura on the bus in question belonging to
Raj Transport Company. The complainant Gurtej Singh and his sister-in-law
had some domestic work to dispose of at Kotkapura, The bus in question
was being driven by accused-Pardaman Singh and the other
accused/petitioner-Gurmit Singh was its Conductor. It is alleged that
when they reached near the brick kiln of Sadhu Ram in the area of village
Laleana, the bus driver stopped the bus and a few passengers got down from
the bus. When Hardev Singh was in the process of getting down from the
bus, the Conductor blew the whistle and the driver accelerated the bus.
Hardev Singh tumbled down, fell on ground and was run over under the rear
tyres of the bus. The complainant Gurtej Singh raised a raula whereupon the
bus driver stopped the bus. One Satish Kumar shopkeeper of village Laleana
was also travelling in the same bus. Gurtej Singh and Satish Kumar carried
the injured Hardev Singh to the Civil Hospital, Kotkapura, where he died.
His death in the road accident was a result of the rash and negligent act on
the part of Pardaman Singh and Gurmit Singh- accused, who were the Driver
and Conductor respectively of the bus in question.
5. The challan against the accused was presented in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot on 31.08.2002. The Trial
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #3#
Court framed a charge against the accused Sections 279/304-A of the Indian
Penal Code, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Head
Constable Baljit Singh as PW1 in whose presence the offending vehicle was
taken into possession by ASI Jit Singh, vide recovery memo Ex.PA. He
accompanied the dead body the hospital for getting the past mortem
conducted upon it. PW2 is LC Sukhmander Singh in whose presence, the
Conductor's licence and driver's driving licence were taken into possession
by ASI Jit Singh, vide recovery memo Ex.PB. PW3 Gurtej Singh is the
complainant as well as eye witness who narrated the detail of the occurrence.
PW4 Jagjit Kaur is an eye witness to the occurrence. She is the wife of
Hardev Singh, since deceased and corroborated the version given by the
other eye witness PW3 Gurtej Singh. PW5 Jit Singh is the Investigating
Officer, who proved the different documents prepared during the
investigation of the case. Thereafter the prosecution closed its evidence.
7. The statement of the accused-persons were recorded under
Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Trial Court. The
accused denied the correctness of the prosecution version and prosecution
evidence appearing against them and contended that they were innocent and
were not rash or negligent. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Dharam
Pal Traffic Manager, Raj Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar, who only
stated that the Raj Transport Company had no stoppage at Laleana (where
the occurrence is stated to have place). Thereafter the accused closed their
evidence.
8. Based on the evidence led, both the accused came to be
convicted and sentenced by the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Faridkot vide judgment and order of sentence dated 06.01.2007
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #4#
as under:-
Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of
Section payment of fine
304-A IPC RI for 1 Year Rs.1000/- RI for 01 Month
279 IPC - Rs.500/- RI for 15 Days
9. The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated
05.04.2007.
10. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present petition.
11. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the
sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated
21.08.2007.
12. The counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that the
accused/petitioner was simply a conductor of the bus and could not be held
guilty under Section 304-A IPC as he had got nothing to do with the driving
of the bus. He was simply sitting on the back seat whereas Hardev Singh
deceased had got down from the bus through the front seat. The liability, if
any, would be of the driver of the bus, namely, accused-Pardaman Singh
(sentence already undergone). 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 2001 and the case had come up for final hearing now after a
gap of 23 years, the accused/petitioner may be released on probation subject
to payment of compensation.
13. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed a custody
certificate of the accused/petitioner dated 02.11.2024 and the same is taken
on record. He contends that it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to
ensure that he would whistle or signal to the driver to drive away only once
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #5#
he had ensured that no passenger was getting into or getting down from the
bus. His act of blowing the whistle without first considering as to whether
any passenger was getting in or out the bus, led to the deceased being
crushed under the tyres of the bus and, therefore, his guilt stood established
beyond reasonable doubt.
14. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the
record.
15. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused/petitioner blew
the whistle on the basis of which driver Pardaman Singh accelerated the bus.
Hardev Singh who was in the process of getting down from the bus was run
over under the rear tyres of the bus in question. Apparently, it was the duty
of the bus conductor to ensure that he blew the whistle so as to signal the
driver to accelerate the bus only when he was sure that no passenger was
getting into or getting down from the bus. His act of blowing the whistle
without due care speaks of his rash and negligent act. Correspondingly, the
driver of the bus, also ought to have considered the fact that Hardev Singh
was getting of the bus when he drove away. Therefore, it is the duty of the
driver and conductor of the bus to ensure before proceeding that the
passenger had either got on or off the bus in a safe and sound manner and
only then to drive away. Thus, I find no infirmity in the judgments of the
Trial Court as well as of the lower Appellate Court. Resultantly, the present
revision stands dismissed.
16. 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 :
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #6#
a. Courts should normally avoid showing undue sympathy to the
accused by imposing inadequate sentence as the same is harmful to
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."
17. Admittedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2001 and as
many as 23 years have passed ever since then. A perusal of his custody
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003373
CRR-661-2007(O&M) #7#
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
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. 04 months and 22 days.
18. The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above
terms.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
January 13, 2025
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
