SIKANDAR PAL SINGH @ BHURA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE negligence in this case would apparently writ large as the child was hit by scooter driven by the petitioner, leading to his death. Submission that FIR was against an unknown and unidentified person, would not mean much. Two witnesses claimed that they got obtained the knowledge about the name and address of the petitioner at the spot itself and they had disclosed the same to the police. As per PW1, the name was disclosed by Sewadar of the School, who was standing outside the school premises. On this basis, it can not be urged that the petitioner was not identified as the one who was driving the scooter. Counsel for the petitioner then pleads for leniency.

(2.) UPON conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 304 -A IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer one year RI coupled with fine of Rs. 500/ -, which, as per the counsel has been paid. Considering the fact that the petitioner is of young age, case for showing some leniency is made out. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to a period of nine months RI for conviction of offence under Section 304 -A IPC.