High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/3778/2016disposed of

Surjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2017-01-20Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj2 pages

CRR No.3778-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Revision No. 3778 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 20, 2017.

Surjit Singh ..........PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab ........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Ashish Sanghi, D.A.G. Punjab, counsel for respondent-State.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner-convict against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur vide which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 279 and 337 IPC each and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sachin Mehta 2017.01.23 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRR No.3778-2016 -2Section 304-A IPC besides the sentence of fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner but has requested for lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence putting forth the plea that the petitioner is young boy of 27 years of age and is the only bread winner of his family comprising of his wife and three minor children. He is not a previous convict. Learned State counsel has argued that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing registration No.PBA9447, resulting in death of a lady and injuries to another lady, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any reduction in the quantum of sentence. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not a previous convict.

Keeping in view the age and antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner-convict deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that period of rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year six months. Remaining sentence awarded to the petitioner is maintained. Disposed of accordingly.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) January 20, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Sachin Mehta 2017.01.23 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH