JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagtar Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner was further convicted under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, vide order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar dated 10.3.1992. The appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was dismissed vide order of AddI. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dated 17.11.1993.

(2.) In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 18.11.1988 Amar Chand along with his brother Madan Lal, brothers son Chander Parkash, grand daughter Mailju Rani and another relative Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were going from Nabha to Ganga Nagar in Maruti Van No. CHK 7586 driven by Ajaib Khan in order to participate in the marriage of their relation. At about 7 P.M. when the said Maruti Van went ahead of Village Kabarwala on Malout Abohar road, one Kilometer ahead of Village Kabarwala an Eicher tractor came from the opposite direction on its correct side of the road. In the meanwhile Bus No. PBX-52 belonging to Fazilka Dabwali Transport Company, driven rasbly and negligent by a clean shaven person with trimmed beard who was subsequently found to be the petitioner, came from Abohar side and struck the bus against the tractor and then against the Maruti Van. As a result of the said accident, the tractor and the Maruti Van was badly damaged. All the occupants of the van sustained injuries including its driver Ajaib Khan. The driver of the tractor also received injuries. After the accident the injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Malaout where they were medically examined by Dr. Harnam Singh. Condition of Chander Parkash being serious, he was referred to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, but died on the way.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioner it was mainly contended that the petitioner is a first offender in his mid thirties and is the sole bread winner of his family and that he may be released on Probation of Good Conduct. After the accident the petitioner did not lend any helping hand in order to remove the injured from the site of the accident to the Hospital. Thus taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case as well as the antecedents and the family background of the petitioner, in my opinion it is not a fit case to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner underwent agony of trial for about 3l2 years and his appeal also remained pending before the learned AddI. Sessions Judge for about 11/2 years, the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code by the Courts below is reduced from one year rigours imprisonment concerning the aforesaid two offences to six months RI each, whereas, the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section 337 of the Code is reduced from 6 months RI to three months R.I. The sentence of find and the rigorous imprisonment for two months in default to payment of fine u/s 304-A of I.P.C. is, however, maintained. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. Except with this modification, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed except modification in sentence.