219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.04.2026 Manish Kumar Luthra …Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advocate with Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2011, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was partly upheld, however, the quantum of sentence was modified and the petitioner was sentenced as under:-

Under Section RI

279 of IPC Six months

304-A of IPC 01 year

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2004, ASI Baldev Singh along with other police sleuths was present outside the police post, in connection with routine duty, where the complainant Parkash Chand met the police party and got recorded his statement, on the allegations that on

03.07.2004, when he along with his brother Prabhu Lal, Satpal alias Pali and others, with their belongings were shifting to their village in a trolley owned by Bittu son of Ved Parkash and when they reached near Baba Tahli Shah Peer, Verka, driver of trolley, namely, Bittu stooped his trolley and parked it on one side of the road. They all alighted from the tractor trolley to quench their thirst. In the meantime, a Maruti car bearing No. PB 02-AK-3644 make Alto being driven at a high speed, struck against his brother Prabhu Lal, who came near to the trolley after taking water, and dragged him to a distance of about 20 karams and thereafter, dashed against the trees, due to which, his brother was seriously injured and it was about 2.30 p.m. many people started gathering at the spot and taking benefit of the same, the driver of the car managed to escape from the spot. This accident had been caused due to negligence of the driver as he was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed due to which, his brother got injuries. He, along with Satpal alias Pali and Bittu had witnessed the entire accident and shifted his brother to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant, the case was registered against the accused.

3. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Area Magistrate. The trial Court found that a prima facie case under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was made out against the petitioner and he was ordered to be charge-sheeted accordingly, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Parkash Chand as PW-1, ASI Baldev Singh as PW-2, Gulzar Singh as PW-3, HC Gurbachan Singh as PW-4, Dr. Navpreet Kaur as PW-5, Pargat Singh as PW-6, HC Gurbax Singh as PW-7, Pala Ram as PW-8 and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances were put to him. However, he denied all allegations and pleaded false implication in the present case. The petitioner did not produce any defence evidence before the trial Court.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgments of conviction passed against the petitioner by both the Courts, however, some leniency may be shown, while awarding the sentence on him. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction, still this Court has examined the entire case on merits in the light of the evidence led by the prosecution.

7. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner does not deserve any concession regarding sentence and the present revision petition be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties