Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Jaipal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Ut - Respondent
CRM- 44373 of 2021 in/and CRA-S-2478-Sb-2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Section 482 - Release of original driving licence - Motor Vehicle Act - 185 - Summary: The court disposed of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for release of original driving licence of the appellant and took up the main appeal for final disposal. The main appeal challenged the judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh convicting the appellant under Sections 304 Part-II, 338 of the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence but reduced the sentence considering the appellant's age, family circumstances, and time already served.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for causing a fatal accident due to negligent driving. Eyewitnesses and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. The appellant sought a lenient view on the sentence based on personal circumstances and cited precedent cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on strong evidence but reduced the sentence considering the appellant's personal circumstances and time already served.
Issues: Conviction under Sections 304 Part-II, 338 of the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and the appropriate sentence for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, the appellant's personal circumstances, and precedent cases to uphold the conviction and reduce the sentence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to the period already served, subject to the appellant depositing a specified amount within a given period.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - CRM-44373-2021
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for release of original driving licence of the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant as well as U.T. Chandigarh, have stated that instead of deciding the present application, main appeal may kindly be heard and decided. It is submitted that both the counsel are prepared to argue the appeal.
3. In view of the same, the present application is disposed of with the observation that the main appeal is taken up on Board today itself for final disposal.
Main case
4. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and also to the order of sentence dated 20.04.2018 vide which the appellant had been convicted as under:-
Name of Convict | Offence under Section | Imprisonment |
Jai Pal | 304 Part-II IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years (Seven years) and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months (SIX months) |
338 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days (Seven days) | |
185 of Motor Vehicle Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months (six months) and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days (fifteen days) |
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the convict during the investigation and trial is ordered to be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him. Case property be disposed of/returned to the rightful owner, as per rules after the period of expiry of the limitation for appeal/revision in the case. File be consigned to the record room. Fine not paid."
5. The case in brief of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered on the statement of Constable Ajay Kumar with the allegations that on the intervening night of 01/2-11-2016, he was on patrolling duty alongwith Kulwinder No. 1303 and on reaching the lights point of Sector 40/41, Chandigarh, they saw a Tempo-Traveller bearing registration No.PB-01-A-7736 (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner and after jumping the red light, struck against the Activa Scooter bearing registration No.CH-01-BE-1164 which was coming from Badheri Chowk Sector 40/41 and 54/55 on which two persons were stated to be travelling and the said car dragged the scooter for 20- 25 steps and on account of the said accident, grievous injuries were suffered by Surinder, which resulted in his death. Even the other rider-Santosh had suffered multiple grievous injuries. The appellant was apprehended on the spot. On the basis of the said statement, FIR was registered and challan was presented and the appellant was tried by the Sessions Court.
6. The prosecution has examined 19 witnesses, in support of its case, which are as follows:-
1. PW1-HC Harbans Singh
2. PW2-Constable Sombir Singh
3. PW3-Constable Ajay Kumar4. PW4-Dr. Harmeet Sodhi
5. PW5-Dr. Parsoon Kumar, Sr. Resident, Department of Orthopedics, PGIMER, Chandigarh
6. PW6-Milab Chand
7. PW7-Dr. Satyam Tyagi, EMO, GMSH-16, Chandigarh
8. PW8-Naresh Kumar
9. PW9-HC Satish Kumar,
10. PW10-Volunteer Kulwinder No. 1303
11. PW11 -Devinder Singh Rawat, Data Entry Operator,
12. PW12-Meenu, Junior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Chandigarh
13. PW13-ASI Dharamvir Singh,
14. PW14-Santosh
15. PW15-HCDharamPal
16. PW16-Mohinder Singh, Investigating Officer,
17. PW17-Constable Vikas Kumar,
18. PW18-HC Yash Pal No.3104,
19. PW19-Pardeep Singh Rawat,
7. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he had denied all the allegations levelled against him.
8. There were three eye-witnesses i.e. PW3-Constable Ajay Kumar, PW1
The court considered the appellant's personal circumstances and precedent cases to reduce the sentence while upholding the conviction.
The court considered the circumstances of the petitioner and previous case law to reduce the sentence.
The judgment emphasizes the gravity of rash and negligent driving, highlighting the need for proportionate punishment to deter potential wrongdoers and uphold public confidence in the justice system.
The legal principle emphasized the need for strict punishment for offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents, rejecting the plea to reduce the sentence based on the severity of the off....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
