Gaurav Mehra v. State of Punjab

CRR-1295-2010 #1# INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH CRR-1295-2010 DateoofoDec ! o"#-1$%0&%2025 GAURAV MEHRA ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent CORA'#- HON(B)Eo'R%oJU*TICEoJA*JITo*INGHoBEDI Present:- Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate with Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner. Mr. Prabhdeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. *** JA*JITo*INGHoBEDI+oJ% The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2008 passed by the Judicial stMagistrate, 1 Class, Nawanshahr has been dismissed.

¶2The FIR in the present case came to be registered on

24.10.2004. The judgment of conviction was passed on 01.04.2008 by the stJudicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Nawanshahr. The appeal filed against the order of conviction was dismissed on 07.05.2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The instant revision petition was filed on 10.05.2010 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 20 years from the date of registration of the FIR. CRR-1295-2010ooooooo #2#

¶3The o prosecution o case o was o registered o on o the o statement o of SukhwantoSingh,owhoomadeoaostatementotooHCoKashmiroSinghoofoP.S. Banga,oallegingotherein,oinobriefoasounder:- "Thatoono23.10.2004,oheohadogoneotootheograinomarketofor theosaleoofopaddyocropoalongwithoSahiboSinghoandohis nephewoRavinderoSinghoandovisitedotheocommissionoagent MukhtiaroSinghoinograinomarketoandoasotheopaddyocropowas notosold,otherefore,otheyowentotootakeomealoinoaoDhaba.ooAt abouto10.30op.m.,otheyoreturnedotootheograinomarketoafter takingomealoandohadocrossedotheoroadoSahiboSinghowas behindothem.oTheoaccusedocameofromoPhagwaraosideoonoa marutiocaroandowasodrivingotheosameoatoaoveryohighospeed andostruckoSahiboSingh,owhooreceivedomanyoinjuriesoandodue toohighospeed,otheomarutiocaroalsooturnedoturtleoandostruckoin theofour-walloofotheograinomarket.oTheooccupantoofothe maruti o car o including o the o driver/accused o also o received injuries;oGauravoMehraowasodrivingotheomarutiocaroandothe occurrenceotookoplaceodueotootheorashoandonegligentodriving ofotheodriveroofotheomarutiocaroandoSahiboSinghodiedoatothe spot.oHeowasotakenotooCiviloHospitaloBangaoandocarodriver wasotakenotooKaranoHospital,ofromowhereoDoctororeferred himotooDMCoHospital,oLudhiana.oTheoaccidentotookoplace dueotootheorashoandonegligentodrivingoofotheocarodriver,oin whichoSahiboSinghoreceivedoinjuriesoandodied.oDuringothe night,otheocomplainantohadogoneotoogiveoinformationotoohis relationsoandothenoinotheomorningoi.e.o24.10.2004,oheogave theostatementotooHCoKashmiroSinghoandocaseoinohandowas registered.

4.o OnotheostatementoofoSukhwantoSingh,ocomplainant,oendorsement wasosentotooPoliceoStation,oBangaoandocaseoinohand/FIRoEx.oPA/1owas registered.oThatoInvestigatingoOfficero(hereinafterotoobeocalledoasoIOofor CRR-1295-2010 #3# convenience) prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He also went to the spot and prepared the rough site plan of the place of accident. He also took into possession the maruti car from the spot vide separate recovery memo. The accused was arrested in this case and statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

¶5The Magistrate found a prima facie case punishable u/s 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and he was charge-sheeted accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Ravinder Singh, PW2 Sukhwant Singh, PW3 Dr. Kashmir Chand, PW4 HC Kashmir Singh, PW5 Dalip Kumar, PW6 Narinder Pal Singh and PW7 C. Joga Singh.

¶6The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing in prosecution evidence in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and claimed to be innocent and contended that case has been falsely registered against him by the police, though in fact the car had struck the wall of Grain Market, Banga. He never caused any accident as alleged by the prosecution and he had been falsely implicated in this case.

¶7Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be stconvicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Nawanshahr vide judgment and order of sentence dated 01.04.2008 as under:- Offe"ce o ,"-e. *e"te"ceoRI/*I F "e RI/*I o " o -efa,0t *ect o" of o 1a23e"t o of f "e 279 IPC RI for 06 months --- --- CRR-1295-2010 #4# 304 IPC RI for 02 years Rs.2000/- RI for 01 month

¶8The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide judgment dated 07.05.2010.

¶9The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.

¶10During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2010.

¶11The counsel for the accused/petitioner and the Amicus Curiae contends that the judgment of conviction was passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. There is no evidence of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused/petitioner. The identity of the accused/petitioner has not been established as per law. In addition, he contends that in case this Court was to come to a finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, then keeping in view the fact that the occurrence was of the year 2004 and the case had come up for final hearing now after a gap of more than 20 years, the accused/petitioner may be released on probation or his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of compensation.

¶12The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed a custody certificate of the accused/petitioner dated 17.03.2025 and the same is taken on record. He contends that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the culpability of the accused/petitioner. The prosecution witnesses CRR-1295-2010 #5# had deposed consistently as to the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. There were no discrepancies in their statements as has been sought to be argued. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶13I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

¶14Photographs Ex.PW.5/A to Ex.PW.5/F produced by the prosecution are admitted by the accused from the manner in which the car struck the wall, it can be presumed that it was at a very high speed. From the photographs produced on the file, it is clear that this car was not only being driven by the accused at a very high speed but it was also being driven rashly and negligently. There is sufficient evidence with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 279 IPC.

¶15The accident in question took place at about 10.30 PM on

23.10.2004. Dr. Kashmir Chand (PW3) deposed that on 24.10.2004, he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sahib Singh, which was brought by HC Kashmir Singh. As per medical opinion, cause of death of Sahib Singh was shock and hammeourage due to injuries. Copy of postmortem report is proved by this witness as Ex. PW3/Α. Death of Sahib Singh in an accident is duly proved. The plea of the accused is that he did not cause the accident by striking his car against Sahib Singh, whereas PW1-Ravinder Singh and PW-2 Sukhwant Singh have deposed that before striking the car by the accused/petitioner in the boundary wall, it struck against Sahib Singh. The accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut this evidence. The prosecution has proved the site plan of the place of CRR-1295-2010 #6# accident as Ex. PE, Memo Ex.PF vide which said car was taken into possession. In the site plan, Ex. PE, the main road is shown. It is also shown that at point-A Sahib Singh was standing, whereas the car is shown at point C. Points A and B are on Kacha Path. Sahib Singh, Sukhwant Singh and Ravinder Singh were on this Kacha Path at the relevant time. The car in question being driven by the accused came from Phagwara side and it had come on the Kacha Path. These facts show that the accused was driving the car rashly, negligently and at a very high speed.

¶16Thus, it is duly proved by the prosecution that the driver of the said car i.e. the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner and he is responsible for causing the death of Sahib Singh.

¶17Though there are some minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses of the prosecution, but these are not material. The prosecution has proved that this accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said car by the accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. He has failed to rebut evidence of the prosecution.

¶18In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the Lower Appellate Court. Resultantly, the present revision stands dismissed.

¶19As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out that this Court in GurmukhoSinghoVs.oStateoofoPunjaboCRRoNo.2168-201 !e"i#e#oono1$.12.202$ held as under:- JITESH LAL " 21.oTh#sotwooparallelothreadsoareo1 CRR-1295-2010ooooooo #7# a. Courtsoshouldonormallyoavoidoshowingoundueo sympathy o to o the o accusedobyoimposingoinadequateosentenceoasotheosameoisoharmfulotoo theojusticeosystemo;oand b. The o Supreme o Court o has o repeatedly o considered o the o fact o that o ordealoofofacingopangsoofoprolongedotrialoneedsotoobeo considered o whileodecidingoadequacyoofosentenceoinotheomattersopertainingotoo offenceopunishableounderoSectiono304-AoIPC.o Whereotheoaccusedo hasofacedotheoprolongedotrialorunningointoomoreothanoaodecade o beforeoitoisofinallyoconcludedobyotheoHighoCourtoorotheoSupremeo CourtoandobothotheoCourtsofoundothatotheovictimoneedsotoobe o compensatedoadequately,otheotimeospentoinotheolisobyoanoaccusedoando compensationotootheovictimocanoformorelevantoconsiderationsoforo reductionoinosentence.

22.o In o the o present o case o the o present o revision o is o pending o considerationoforolastonineoyears.oFIRorelatesotootheoyearo2007.o Theo petitionerowasograntedosuspensionoofosentenceoono27.10.2014ooaftero heoexpressedohisoreadinessotoocompensateotheovictimobyopaying o Rs.1.00olac.oTheoaforesaidoamountostandsopaid.oTheoquestionois,o havingopaidocompensationoasoperotheoordersoofothisoCourto9oyearso back,oshouldotheopetitionerobeoaskedotoogoobackobehindobars?oItoisoino theseomitigatingocircumstancesothatothisoCourtofindsoitoappropriateoto followotheoordersopassedobyoApexoCourtoinoK.oJagdish'socaseo(supra)o asotheofactsoinotheopresentocaseoareoalmostosimilarotoothoseobeforeo theoApexoCourt.oIomayohastenlyoaddohereothatotheopetitionerois o claimedotoohaveopaidocompensationoandoneitherotheoStateonoro the o victim o has o agitated o against o the o order o passed o by o this o court o askingotheopetitionerotoodepositocompensationoandograntingohim o suspensionoofosentence.

23.o Theopetitioneroisoaofirstotimeooffenderoandohasonoopastocriminal o recordooroantecedents.oHeoisonotoreportedotoohaveoeveromisused o concessionoofobail/suspensionoofosentence.oHeohasoundergone o abouto6omonthsooutoofosubstantiveosentenceoofo1oyearoandohas o alreadyofacedoprotractedotrialoforolasto16oyears.

24.o Taking o into o consideration o all o these o facts o cumulatively, o the o substantiveosentenceoofo1oyearoawardedotootheopetitionerobyothe o Courtsobelowoisoreducedotootheoperiodoalreadyoundergoneobyo him.

25.o Petitionoisodisposedooff,oaccordingly." CRR-1295-2010 #8#

¶20Admittedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2004 and as many as 20 years have passed ever since then. A perusal of his custody certificate would show that he does not have any criminal antecedents and is a first time offender. Therefore, subject to the payment of the fine as imposed and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, the sentence of the accused/petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 01 month and 22 days%

¶21The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ooo4oJA*JITo*INGHoBEDIo5 ooooooooo ooooo ooooooooJUDGE oooo 1$%0&%2025 6 te!7 (hetheros)eaking*reasone# +es*No (hetherore)ortab,e +es*No