SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 437

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Surjan Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRR-625-2010
Decided On : 28-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate with Mr. Aarav Gupta, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G.

The judgment highlights that testimony inconsistencies and delay in trial can influence sentencing in criminal negligence cases.

Headnote:This judgment discusses the appeal against the conviction and sentence for negligent driving under Sections 304A, 337, and 338 IPC. The court analyzed witness testimonies, particularly focusing on the lack of cross-examination of the primary complainant, resulting in a dismissal of the revision petition. It framed issues around the credibility of testimonies and assessed culpability, concluding that the evidence substantiated the convictions. The final judgment reduced the petitioner’s sentence based on mitigating factors due to the prolonged trial period.

Table of Content
1. summary of accident details and initiation of legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding witness credibility and evidentiary support. (Para 12 , 13)
3. court's evaluation of evidence and culpability. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. final decision and sentence reduction based on mitigating circumstances. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala has been dismissed.

2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 21.08.2000. The judgment of conviction was passed on 05.07.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala. The appeal filed against the order of conviction was dismissed on 08.02.2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. The instant revision petition was filed on 25.02.2010 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 24 1/2 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that ASI Jasbir Singh along with other police officials was present at Adda Qila Lal Singh in connection with patrolling duty when Shinda Masih son of Natha Mashih came there and his statement was got recorded to the effect that he was a resident of village Khusipur. On 21.08.2000 when he along with his brother Prem Masih and his son Surjit Masih were present in the area of Adda Bidhipur and Surjit Masih was boarding the bus bearing No.PB-06-1026 for Batala, he and his brother followed the bus on their scooter. At about 10.15 AM. the bus driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently and at a high speed. Suddenly one scooter came from the opposite side and the bus driver tried to save the scooterist and applied brakes and due to that the bus went into the paddy fields. He and other passengers pulled out Surjit Masih and others from beneath the bus. Surjit Masih got admitted at Civil Hospital, Batala where he died. The accident took place due to the driving of the bus by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. Upon the basis of the above said statement of the complainant, a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the case on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered against the accused persons.

4. Thereafter, the investigation started and ASI Jasbir Singh and other police officials reached at Civil Hospital, Batala where postmortem of the dead body of Surjit Masih was got conducted and after identification of the dead body, it was handed over to the legal heirs of Surjit Masih deceased. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded. The accidented vehicle was taken into police possession through recovery memo. The documents of the vehicle were also taken into police possession. The accidented vehicle was got mechanically tested. After the completion of investigation, and other formalities of the case, the challan against the accused was presented in the Court under Sections 304A /279/337/338 IPC for trial.

5. On consideration of the challan and documents attached herewith, charges under Sections 304A /337/338 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Shinda Masih as PW1 in examination-in-chief and thereafter he did not turn up for his cross-examination because of which his deposition could not be read in evidence. Satnam Singh was examined as PW2, HC Budh Singh as PW3, ASI Jasbir Singh as PW4, Dr. Jagdev Singh Chahal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Batala as PW5, Gurcharan Singh as PW6 and Sarabjit Singh as PW7.

7. The accused was examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed false implication.

8. Based on the evi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top