CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 10, 2009. Parties Name Gurdial Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, D.A.G., Punjab; JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT: It was allegation against the petitioner that on November 2, 1995, by driving truck bearing No. PB 11B 4547, in a rash and negligent manner, he has caused death of Shri Balwinder Singh. Vide judgment dated September 8, 1999, he was held guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default clause. He went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated December 18, 2001. Hence this revision petition. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2002 -2- The prosecution story, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, reads thus: “2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 2.11.95, a telephonic message was received in the control room that one Balwinder Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of Surastigarh, has died in a road accident. Then on receiving the information, ASI Amarjit Singh alongwith other police officials reached at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Then he found that one Dalip Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Surastigarh, met ASI Amarjit Singh and got recorded his statement which is read as follows. He stated that on 2.11.95 at about 2.30 PM, he was going to village Devigarh to get diesel on his bicycle. He saw Santokh Singh son of Surjit Singh, who was driving Hero Honda Motor-cycle , was going from Devigarh Adda towards Petrol Pump side. Balwinder Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Surastigarh and one minor girl Charanjit Kaur daughter of Mukhtial Singh were also riding motor-cycle on pillion. Then he saw Satokh Singh gave signal with his right hand and tried to divert his motor-cycle towards Petrol Pump. Then at that time, a truck bearing No. PB-11B 4547 came from Devigarh side on a very high speed and hit against the said motor-cycle, as a result of which all the three riders of motor- cycle received serious injuries and motor-cycle was crushed under the truck. Then the truck driver stopped the truck after meeting with an accident and came down from the driving seat and then he found that he was Gurdial Singh son of Ajmer CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2002 -3- Singh, resident of village Mandi, P.S. Julkan, as he knew him personally. Then he made arrangement for shifting the injured to the hospital and in the meanwhile, the accused ran away from the spot. Then Bakshish Singh of their village came at the spot and with the help of him, all the injured were took into car and shifted to Rajindra Hospital, whereas Balwinder Singh succumbed to his injuries on way to the hospital and the remaining injured were shifted in the hospital.” On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution produced six witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he denied, claimed innocence and false implication. He also led evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence as led by the parties, came to a conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving guilt of the petitioner and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner has tried to challenge the judgments, under challenge, by making reference to some technical defects here and there in case of the prosecution. He has failed to assail the prosecution case on merits, which was proved by the eye witnesses and also by bringing medical evidence on record. Faced with the situation as stated above, he states that the accident took place in the year 1995, the petitioner has already undergone one month and 10 days of actual CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2002 -4- sentence. He is the sole bread winner in the family. He owns only one truck, on which he was working as a Driver. Besides that, he does not own any property. If at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, not only he but his entire family would suffer. Counsel has further stated that after accident in question, the petitioner has not committed such like offence thereafter. Counsel has also assured the Court that the petitioner would now act as a dutiful and disciplined citizen and further that he would drive the vehicle in a very careful and cautious manner. By stating as above, prayer has been made to release the petitioner on probation. Prayer made by counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the State counsel. She stated that the rash and negligent driving has virtually become a habit of the truck Drivers and if leniency is shown to the petitioner, it will encourage others to commit similar offence. She further states that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the offence committed by him. She prayed that the revision petition be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose of Criminal Law justice is not only to bring peace , discipline and harmony in the Society but is also to give an opportunity to the erring individual to reform himself. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, especially a fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1995, petitioner continued to face agony of trial, thereafter appeal and this revision petition, which is pending since the year 2002, this Court is of the opinion that he deserves lenient treatment. Petitioner is about 40 years of age. He has grown up family members and if sent in jail at this stage, it is likely to prove counter productive. He is a first offender. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2002 -5- Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7, observed as under:- “Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repeat for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused. Its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society: weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2002 -6- his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.” Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CAR 280(SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5 (SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of the aforesaid judgments, conviction is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. However, by taking note of ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 372, and to settle equity between the parties, fine imposed is enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine with the trial Court within three months from today and on deposit so being made, trial Court will issue a notice to legal heirs of deceased Balwinder Singh and disburse that amount to them forthwith. In case amount is not deposited, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner shall execute bail bond and undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime of the like nature during the period of six months. Requisite bail bonds and undertaking be furnished within three months. With above said modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. February 10, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge