RANJIT SINGH ALIAS AMRU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RANJIT Singh petitioner was tried and convicted for the offences under sections 304-A, 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for the offence under section 279, IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pathankot, by judgment/order dated 6.3.1995. An appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which was rejected by judgment July 25, 1995. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 11.9.1994 at about 7.50 a.m. the petitioner while driving truck No. PAT-4110 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn, struck against Maruti car bearing registration No. PCF-362 driven by Dr. Hari Chand Gupta, as a result of which Dr. Hari Chand Gupta died and the other occupants of the car received injuries. A charge under sections 304-A, 279, 427, IPC, was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. The Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pathankot, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate I Class were confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.

(3.) SHRI P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner has no past criminal history nor he is a previous convict; that he is the only bread winner of his family and ought to have been released on probation under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.