Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2010(O&M) -2- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2010 Narinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate and Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for Mr.Ashish Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Narinder Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 9.1.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira. Vide order of the even date the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.2,500/- under Section 304-A IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2010(O&M) -2- same was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Precisely speaking facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was registered at the instance of Sukhraj Singh (PW4), who got recorded his statement Ex.P4 with the Investigating Officer ASI Sardool Singh to the effect that: “When on 14.9.1995 he along with his daughter Bikaramjit Kaur, Bhag Singh, Rani and others on the tractor trolley driven by Harnam Singh were going to attend religious function at Grain Market, Zira on their tractor bearing No.PBF 8654, appellant/accused while driving his Canter bearing registration No.PB-04B-9766 struck his canter while driving the same in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which hook of the tractor- trolley was broken and it fell into ditches and the persons who were travelling in the trolley also suffered injuries. The offending canter which was loaded with 80 bags of potato also fell into the khads. Out of the injured Kuldip Singh and his siter Rani when being taken to the hospital dies; whereas, others namely, Chhinder Kaur, Raj Singh Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2010(O&M) -2- and Jasbir Kaur suffered injuries on their persons. It is alleged that it was at about 7.30 p.m. when they were just behind link road of Malsian that despite of dipper having been used by Harnam Singh driver of the tractor, appellant/accused who was driving the canter in rash and negligent manner at very high speed, did not stop the canter and struck the same in the tractor.” Notice of motion was issued in this case qua quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than six months of actual sentence. The trolley in question had got detached from the tractor, which resulted in the death of two persons. In these circumstances, it was a case of contributory negligence and hence, sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that in the instant case two persons had died and three persons had suffered injuries After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. The petitioner was driving the canter in question at the time of accident. The canter driven by the petitioner struck against the tractor trolly. As a result of the impact, the trolly got detached Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2010(O&M) -2- from the tractor and two persons sitting in the trolley died, whereas, three persons suffered injuries. Since the trolley had got detached from the tractor due to the impact of the canter, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, sentence qua imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court cannot be said to be on the higher side. No interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 20, 2010 anita