Criminal Revision No.1859 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1859 of 2003 Date of Decision: 09.02.2011. Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Challenge herein is to the judgment dated June 15 th, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated October 5 th, 1999 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 3 months ` 200/- RI for 2 months 304-A IPC RI for 1 ½ years ` 500/- RI for 2 months 337 IPC RI for 6 months ` 300/- RI for 2 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story is that on October 14 th, 1994, Pritam Kaur (PW-3) along with her husband Ranjit Singh (deceased) was going on motorcycle from Morinda to village Duburji. The motorcycle was being driven by her husband at slow speed. When they were 1 KM short of village Chahlan, a four wheeler bearing registration No. CH-01E/4210 came from behind, that is, from side of Samrala at a fast speed. It was driven by the petitioner in a rash and Criminal Revision No.1859 of 2003 2 negligent manner on wrong side. The four wheeler struck against the hind portion of the motorcycle. Both of them fell down. Nathu Ram (PW-4), a passer-by, also witnessed the occurrence. Both the injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Samrala. Condition of Ranjit Singh was serious. He was evacuated to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. He succumbed to his injuries on October 18 th, 1994. Police was informed. Police reached Civil Hospital, Samrala. Statement of Pritam Kaur (Exhibit PB) was recorded. On her statement, First Information Report (Exhibit P-9) was registered in Police Station Samrala. The offending vehicle was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit P-17). Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-1) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Singh. 3. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-1), Ranjit Singh, Photographer (PW-2), Pritam Kaur (PW-3), Nathu Ram (PW-4), Subhash Chander, Head Constable (PW-5) and Prem Nath-Investigator (PW-6). 5. The accused-petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The eye-witness account in this case has been rendered by Pritam Kaur (PW-3) and Nathu Ram (PW-4). Pritam Kaur, pillion rider at the time of the accident, has categorically stated that her husband was driving motorcycle at a slow speed and was on correct left side of the road. The offending vehicle came from behind at a fast speed driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. She being injured is the “stamped” witness whose presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted nor the version given by her regarding the rash and negligent act of the petitioner can be doubted. Her evidence finds support from the Criminal Revision No.1859 of 2003 3 statement of Nathu Ram (PW-4) who also deposed that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, no infirmity could be pointed out in their testimony by learned counsel for the petitioner. Their testimony is natural and inspires the confidence. Not only that, their evidence further finds support from the site plan (Exhibit P-15) drawn on the spot. In the site plan, the motorcycle was shown to be on extreme left side of the road when the accident took place. 7. In view of this overwhelming evidence, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty. However, an argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to some reasonable period on the ground that the petitioner was a young man of 27 years at the time of accident. He has already undergone the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of about 15 years. He is the only bread winner of his family. He has not indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. 8. Taking all these factors into consideration, sentence of the petitioner is reduced from 1 ½ years to 1 year under Section 304-A IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentence of fine shall remain intact. 9. Except with this modification in the quantum of sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. 10. The revisionist is on bail. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Learned trial Magistrate is directed to comply with this order under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 09.02.2011 SN