Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.@mdashThe petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 14 dated 11.02.2002 registered under Sections 304A, 337, 338, 427 IPC at Police Station, Dina Nagar on the allegation that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the wife of Ramesh Lal expired whereas his daughter suffered injuries.

2. Briefly, the facts are that on 11.02.2002, the FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Ramesh Lal with the allegations that when at about 6.15 P.M., he was coming back from a marriage on his scooter along with his wife and daughter about 500 yards from Behrampur Adda, a Tanker TATA-407 came from opposite side at a high speed and because of rash and negligent driving caused the accident with his scooter, as a result thereof, the wife of Ramesh Lal/complainant was crushed under the Tanker and died on the spot and his daughter suffered injuries. The petitioner/accused ran away from the spot. The statement of the complainant whose wife had expired was corroborated by other eye witness PW2 Jagdish Raj. Besides this, there were other witnesses, namely, PW8 Dr. H.S. Bhatia, PW9 Dr. S.K. Hans, proved the post mortem report of the deceased and also admission slip of Radha Rani (daughter of the complainant who was injured).

3. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of eye witnesses, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo the following sentence:-

4. In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and even his request for granting him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959, was also declined. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences committed under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC. However, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the person who was accompanying the deceased and the injured and also other eye witness, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial before the Courts below for about six years and further that he has 5 daughters to support and being the sole bread-earner of the family should be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, he has already undergone a sentence of 3 months and 17 days of actual imprisonment. He further submitted that the complainant has already been awarded a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has also placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Cri) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Cri) 656; Krtshan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(4) CCC 765 (P&H): 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) CCC 626 (P&H) : 2004(3) RCR (Cri) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Cri) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(4) CCC 681 (P&H): 2005(3) RCR (Cri) 597.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, sole bread earner of family and with five daughters to support are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner.

6. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.