GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment, dated 21.12.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337, IPC, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, was dismissed, with modification in the order of sentence.

(2.) At the very outset learned counsel contends that in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337, IPC, he would not contest the present petition on merits with regard to the verdict of his guilt for the said offences. He further submits that in view of the fact that the alleged accident had taken place on 10.10.1999 and since then the petitioner is facing the agony of trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition; the petitioner, who is a driver on a private bus, has lost his service and except him there is none in the family to look after the family members; the petitioner was first offender since he was neither involved nor required in any other case; during the pendency of the trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition, petitioner was granted the concession of bail, but he did not misuse the said concession; parents of Lucky (since deceased) were awarded adequate compensation by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, and that the petitioner was allowed bail after suspension of his sentence by this Court on 06.01.2006 and it would not be appropriate to send him to jail once again after a gap of nine years when he has settled down in the society. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the latest two judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab vs Saurabh Bakshi, 2015 2 RCR(Cri) 495 and Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa vs State of Karnataka, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 263 to support the view that in both the said cases, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months was approved for the offence punishable under Section 304-A,IPC. He further submits that though parents of the deceased have adequately been compensated but still keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court may pass appropriate order under Section 357, Cr.P.C., for awarding more compensation to the aggrieved family.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly opted not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. He further submits that the learned Courts below have passed the adequate sentence, therefore, there is no scope for further reduction of the sentence.