Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Pritam Singh was tried in case FIR No. 32 dated 14.07.1987 registered at Police Station Kartarpur. The FIR in the present case was lodged by constable Narinder Pal Singh, who was then posted in Traffic Staff. He stated that on 14th April, 1987 at around 5-5.30 p.m. when he was present on duty in the Cinema Chowk, Kartarpur, bus driven by the petitioner at very fast speed came. The petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The bust hit the pedestrians and cyclists going on the left hand side of the road and injured them. Names of the injured persons are Surinder Ramji, Taleshar alias Kaleshwar and Parkash Chand. On 15th April, 1997, Parkash Chand injured died in the hospital. On the date of occurrence, petitioner was arrested by ASI Kesar Singh.

Constable Narinder Pal Singh, who was posted at duty was the natural witness at the spot. Furthermore, he had also apprehended the petitioner at the spot. Therefore the argument that PW3 was solitary witness, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner because both the Courts below have relied on the testimony of constable Narinder Pal Singh.

The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar had convicted and sentenced Pritam Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that he will undergo two months. He was also sentenced six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence u/s 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The appeal so filed was dismissed.

I have perused the testimony of PW3 Narinder Pal Singh. As stated earlier, he was on duty and therefore the courts below have rightly relied upon his evidence. Another argument made that the ASI Kesar Singh could not be examined, is of no help as the six witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved the case. However, in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 14th April, 1987. A period of more than 20 years has elapsed. Petitioner, who was then 29 years of age is now around 50 years old. Marriage, children and his liabilities towards family is a mitigating circumstance.

Taking the totality of circumstances, sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-, which shall be deposited on or before 30th April, 2008.

Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of present revision petition.