Davinder Singh vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 7.2.1994, passed in Cri. Appeal No. 1 of 7.2.1994. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the petitioner drove a matador van at a higher speed in a rash and negligent manner on 26.4.1989 and caused an accident resulting, in the death of one Bhag Ram son of Ram Chand. On a complaint given by Rasala Ram, a case was registered against the accused in F.I.R. No. 93 dated 26.4.1989 for the offence under Section 279 and 304A; IPC. After completion of the investigation, the S.H.O. Police Station Sangrur filed a chargesheet against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur. On the basis of the material placed before him the learned Magistrate Sangrur framed charges against the accused for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked documents. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC, sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ for the offence under Section 304A, IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, imposed by the learned Magistrate, by his judgment dated 28.10.1993, the appellant filed an appeal on 5.2.1994 before the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal on 7.2.1994 without registering the same on the ground that the appeal was timebarred, as no sufficient cause was shown to condone delay in filing the appeal and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on the accusedappellant stood confirmed. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal as timebarred, the petitioner filed the present revision petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused was already in jail for a period of two months and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further contended that the petitioner has found sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by time.

The learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code by his judgment dated 28.10.1993. It can be seen from the order itself that the copy of the judgment of the learned Magistrate was delivered to the accused on 28.10.1993 itself but the accused did not file any appeal immediately thereafter. He filed the appeal only on 5.2.1994. Admittedly, there is a delay of nearly 80 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner filed a medical certificate said to have been issued by Dr. Sudip Singh, a private registered medical practitioner on 26.11.1993. According to the said certificate the petitioner was suffering from ''Prolaose of inter disc''. According to the certificate, the petitioner was advised bed rest from 26.11.1993 to 3.2.1994. The certificate was given on 26.11.1993 and the appeal was filed on 5.2.1994. It is difficult to understand as to how the doctor was able to say on 26.11.1993 that the petitioner required bed rest upto a particular date in future. Therefore, it is clear that the medical certificate was obtained only for the purpose of this petition for condoning the delay. I do not therefore, find any grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

The evidence on record clearly shows that one person died in the accident and it also shows that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. The accused was sentenced to undergo nine months'' imprisonment only for the offence under Section 304A IPC and the sentence under Section 279 is directed to run concurrently. In these circumstances, I am not able to reduce the sentence. The revision petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.