SARDOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against judgment dated 11.7.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby he reduced the rigorous imprisonment to one year under Section 304-A while maintaining the substantive sentence awarded under Section 279 of IPC by modifying the judgment/order of sentence dated 25.1.2000 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Sardool Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 9.10.1997, Constable Swinder Singh was performing his duties along with Punjab Home Guard, Madan Lal at Bus Stand Rayya. Around 8:30 A.M., a bus bearing registration No. B-12A-8131 Depot No. 1 of Punjab Roadways Amritsar came from Jalandhar side being driven by Sardool Singh accused in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and crushed to death a pedestrian who was going on his left side of the road from Bus Stand Rayya towards City Rayya. Later on, the name of the deceased was learnt to be Vinod Kumar son of Suraj Parkash Bindra resident of New Delhi. On receipt of information of this accident from aforesaid Constable, the FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and closed its evidence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not assailed conviction in any manner. On appraisal of the entire evidence on record, it transpires that no view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below is warranted on the given evidence. Consequently, the conviction is upheld.