GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURCHARAN Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month and 15 days. He was further convicted under Section 338 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 he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months vide order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha dated 6.5.1993. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated 23.10.1993 upheld the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate. Sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Magistrate under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and sentence of fine was maintained. In default of payment of fine, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six months to rigorous imprisonment for two months. Under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code sentence of imprisonment was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six months to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentence of fine or in default thereof was, however, maintained. Under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six months to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentence of fine was maintained. However, in default of payment of fine the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 1-1/2 months rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Sentence of imprisonment under Section 338 of the Indian Penal code was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentence of fine was maintained but, the sentence in default thereof was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three months to rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the petitioner filed the present petition in which notice was issued only regarding the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the petitioner as well as to consider the feasibility of releasing the petitioner on probation.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it was mainly contended that the petitioner underwent agony of trial for about four years before the trial Court and his appeal also remained pending for about six months before the appellate Court and that a lenient view may he taken as there was some contributory negligence on the part of the tempo driver whose tempo was overloaded with about 30 passengers. It was also submitted that he was about 23 years of age at the time of the accident and first offender and he may be released on probation. It has been established on the file that due to the accident which took place mainly due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner six persons died whereas some others received serious injuries. Thus in my opinion it Is not a fit case to grant benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner.