State of Punjab vs Amar Singh

Virender Singh, J.

Amar Singh son of Gorkha Ram, the respondentherein stands convicted by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib under Sections 279 IPC/304A IPC and 427 IPC vide judgment dated 31.5.1991 and sentenced as under :

U/S 279 IPC, To pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default of payment of which to undergo SI for 10 days.

U/S 304A IPC, To pay a fine of Rs. 700/, in default of payment of which to undergo SI for 15 days.

U/S 427 IPC, To pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 7 days.

The State of Punjab, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence, has come up in appeal for enhancement of the sentence.

Ravinder Kumar, who was 23 years of age, is the deceased in this case. He died on 10.5.1989 when his scooter bearing registration No. HPN816 was hit by the truck bearing registration No. HIB1331 being driven by the respondent. The scooter was also damaged, for which reason the respondent was charged under Section 427 IPC as well.

I need not enter into detailed discussion so far as facts of the case are concerned as the only grievance shown by the State is that the sentence awarded is too less and as such deserves to be enhanced.

I have heard Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy AdvocateGeneral, representing the State of Punjab.

No one has appeared for the respondent. Perusal of the record shows that Mr. Baljit Singh, Advocate (an outside counsel) had tendered his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. Since he had not come present on 17.3.2004, the office was directed to inform him of the actual date of hearing. As per office report dated 23.3.2004, the letter was issued to the learned counsel but the same was received back with the report that he was not found present in the Bar Room. I do not intend to adjourn the case any more.

The occurrence relates to the year 1989 and the respondent was of the age of 28 years at that time. The deceased was about 23 years old. Although the learned trial Court has not adopted the appropriate approach in this case with regard to quantum of sentence, yet keeping in view the fact that the respondent has already suffered the rigour of protracted trial for long 15 years, enhancing the substantive sentence at this juncture would amount to taking a harsh step. This Court in Jagdish v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 708SB of 1996 decided on 8.10.2003 released the accused on probation in a case under Section 304A IPC, considering that ten years had gone by and the accused was facing protracted trial. However, the fine was enhanced. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not intend to disturb the sentence awarded on all the counts. JUDGMENTed accordingly. But at the same time, it would be most appropriate if some compensation is awarded to the victim side under Section 357(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, I direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as compensation to the legal heir of the deceased namely Ravinder Kumar. Since no one has come present on behalf of the respondent, the trial Court would inform the respondent to deposit this amount within three months from today. In case the amount is deposited, the same would be disbursed by the trial Court to the legal heirs of the deceased after giving them due notice. In case the respondent fails to deposit the said amount, the same would be recovered by the trial Court in accordance with law.

With the modification aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial Court forthwith for necessary action.

JUDGMENT accordingly.