2023:PHHC:122865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

****

CRR-64-2015

Reserved on: 15.09.2023

Pronounced on: 19.09.2023

Narinder Singh

. . . . Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

. . . . Respondent

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: -

Mr.J.S. Thind, Advocate, with

Mr. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parneet Singh Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Petitioner was tried by the Court of ld. Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No.43 dated

09.06.2011 registered at Police Station Kathunangal, under Sections 304-A,

279, 337 and 427 IPC. After holding him guilty under Sections 279 and

304A IPC vide judgment dated 10.04.2014, ld. trial Court sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for committing the

offence under Section 304A IPC besides payment of fine of `2000/- and

default sentence of 15 days. Petitioner was also sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offence under Section 279 IPC.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2.

Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of

conviction and sentence was dismissed by the ld. Additional Sessions

Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 04.12.2014.

VIVEK PAHWA

2023.09.20 13:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-64-2015

2023:PHHC:122865

Page 2 of 5

3.

Against the aforesaid concurrent finding of conviction

recorded by the Courts below, this revision has been filed.

4.

(i)

It is contended by ld. counsel that both the Courts below

committed error in convicting the petitioner without any cogent evidence on

record. There was no evidence on record to establish the identity of the

petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle. No test identification parade

was conducted. There was unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the

FIR, which has been ignored. Neither Investigating Officer of the case nor

any other police official was examined to prove the steps taken during

investigation. Although it is alleged that accident took place at a public

place, but no independent witness was examined. The prosecution

examined only 3 witnesses, which could not establish the identity of the

petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle and in all these

circumstances, petitioner deserves to be acquitted, by setting aside the

impugned judgments.

(ii)

Ld. counsel also made an alternative submission. It is

submitted that an amount of `8 lakh has already been awarded to the legal

heirs of the deceased in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Later on, compromise was effected between the petitioner and the legal

heirs of the deceased, whereby petitioner paid additional amount of

`90,000/- to them. That compromise deed dated 18.05.2015 is Annexure P1

and looking into these circumstances and the fact that occurrence had taken

place way back in June 2011 and that petitioner has faced agony of these

proceedings for a period of more than 12 years, he may be sentenced for the

period already undergone by him.

VIVEK PAHWA

2023.09.20 13:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-64-2015

2023:PHHC:122865

Page 3 of 5

5.

Ld. State counsel has opposed both the aforesaid prayers and

defended the impugned judgments.

6.

As per the prosecution version on 08.06.2011, Tarlok Singh

(PW1) along with Kulwinder Singh, Rinku, Ranjit Singh (PW2), Arvind

and Bikramjit Singh were travelling on a tractor trolley from Kathunangal

to Abdal. At about 2.00 PM, when they reached bus stop Sahnewali, a truck

bearing No. PB-06L-8105 came from behind being driven at fast speed and

hit the tractor trolley, toppling the same. All the occupa