204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.05.2025 Nirmal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate as (Amicus Curiae)

for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Barnala, in FIR No.61 dated 20.05.2006 registered under Sections 304-A/279/337/333 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dhanaula, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 04.10.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 02.12.2011.

4. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR (supra). Further, the identity of the petitioner has not been established as a person who was driving the truck at the time of the alleged accident. Further, the person who had clicked the pictures after the accident, has not been examined and the photographs of both the vehicles are not proved on record. In the statement of Pritam Singh, there is cutting and overwriting of the registration of the vehicle which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful and the witnesses were discrepant with regard to the time of the accident. Furthermore, PW-6-Pritam Singh has deposed that he has not named the petitioner as an accused and he has no knowledge when the petitioner was arrested neither he has identified the petitioner. To ascertain who was responsible for the accident between the two vehicles, the learned trial Court has not returned any finding that the petitioner is responsible for the accident. Lastly, the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 05 months and 10 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 304-A/279/337/338 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone a period of 05 months and 10 days in custody out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 304-A/279/337/338 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere f