PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dtd. 22/10/2021, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide which the petitioner had been convicted under Ss. 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") and had sentenced him as under: -

(2.) Challenge has also been made to the judgment 31/3/2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Moga vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the abovesaid judgment dtd. 22/10/2021, had been dismissed and sentenced of imprisonment has been upheld. The brief background of the present case is that FIR No.93 dtd. 21/9/2015 was registered under Ss. 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC on the statement of PW2 Surinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, who had stated that he was doing the business of electronics and on 21/9/2015, he along with one Gurpreet Singh and Jagmeet Singh (since deceased) were going from village Sodhi Wala towards Chandigarh in Indica Car for some domestic work and the said car was being driven by Jagmeet Singh and at about 6.00 AM, one canter of make Eicher bearing registration No.PB-08BP-4117, came from the wrong side and was being driven rashly and negligently, struck against the car in which, the complainant and deceased were travelling and on account of the injuries received, the said Jagmeet Singh died, whereas, Gurpreet Singh and the complainant suffered injuries. It has been alleged that it was the present petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle and fled away from the spot. After investigation, the challan was presented and the charges were framed. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Ss. 279 and 304-A of the IPC but he would be satisfied in case, a lenient view is taken with respect to the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioner. In this regard, he has submitted that the FIR in the present case is of the year 2015 and thus, the petitioner has suffered agony of trial/bail/appeal for all these years and the petitioner was granted bail/suspension of sentence but he has never misused said concession. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 46 years of age and has one child, who is not earning and he is the sole bread winner in the family and the petitioner has already undergone 1 month and 10 days of actual custody out of the entire sentence awarded to him and has also earned remission of 4 days and thus, total sentence including remission is 1 month and 14 days. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.