The court considered the circumstances of the petitioner and previous case law to reduce the sentence.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 22.10.2021, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide which the petitioner had been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the IPC") and had sentenced him as under: -

2. Challenge has also been made to the judgment 31.03.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Moga vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the abovesaid judgment dated 22.10.2021, had been dismissed and sentenced of imprisonment has been upheld.

3. The brief background of the present case is that FIR No.93 dated 21.09.2015 was registered under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC on the statement of PW2 Surinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, who had stated that he was doing the business of electronics and on 21.09.2015, he along with one Gurpreet Singh and Jagmeet Singh (since deceased) were going from village Sodhi Wala towards Chandigarh in Indica Car for some domestic work and the said car was being driven by Jagmeet Singh and at about 6.00 AM, one canter of make Eicher bearing registration No.PB-08BP-4117, came from the wrong side and was being driven rashly and negligently, struck against the car in which, the complainant and deceased were travelling and on account of the injuries received, the said Jagmeet Singh died, whereas, Gurpreet Singh and the complainant suffered injuries. It has been alleged that it was the present petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle and fled away from the spot. After investigation, the challan was presented and the charges were framed. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses.

4. PW-1 Ashok Kumar was the investigating officer and had proved on record various documents including Ex.P5, which was the memo, vide which the accidental vehicles were taken into police possession and Ex.P7, which was a memo, vide which RC of canter along with insurance was produced by one Taranjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, before the investigating officer.

5. PW-7 Taranjit Singh was the person who was the owner of the offending truck, which caused the accident, also deposed as a witness and as per his statement, it was the present petitioner, who driving the truck at the time of accident.

6. PW-2 Surinder Singh and PW-3 were the eye witnesses of the occurrence, who stated to have suffered injuries in the occurrence and they had fully supported the case of the prosecution.

7. PW-5 Dr. Rupali Sethi, was the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased Jagmeet Singh, had proved on record the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A.

8. PW-4 Om Parkash, Mechanic, Punjab Roadways and PW-7 Taranjit Singh also supported the case of the prosecution.

9. After considering the said documents and evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner in the manner detailed herein above. The Sessions Judge, Moga, in appeal, considered the entire matter and after reappraisal of all the evidence and documents on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC but he would be satisfied in case, a lenient view is taken with respect to the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioner. In this regard, he has submitted that the FIR in the present ca