Hem Raj vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State of Punjab.

The revisionist was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304A, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, under section 304A. Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and for the same period under section 337 IPC. The sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently.

The conviction and sentence, as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, were challenged by way of criminal appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ropar, who, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, as ordered by the learned Magistrate. Now, this revision has been filed in this Court. At the time of motion hearing, this revision, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, was admitted qua sentence only as the same was the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist.

The notice was served on the respondent through the learned Advocate General, Punjab, for the State of Punjab.

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist being the sole breadearner of his family and being the first offender, be extended the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, read with section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned counsel for the respondentState contended that in this case the revisionist, who was the driver of the truck, caused the accident which resulted in the death of one Gurmit Singh who was driving his motor cycle from Chandigarh to Kharar.

In the facts and circumstances of this case in which, due to rash and negligent driving by the revisionist, a person lost his life and the family of the deceased was deprived of the breadearner, the giving of benefit of first offender under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act will not be just and proper. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years, awarded by the Court below, appears to be somewhat excessive and the same is reduced to nine months and, subject to the said modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed.