Revision Petition against order dismissing Suspension of Sentence

In this post we will discuss about a Revision Petition against order dismissing Suspension of Sentence wherein The Honorable court found no ground for any interference in the findings of conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC as recorded by learned JMIC and as affirmed by the Court of Sessions in appeal.

Also Read- CRIMINAL REVISION PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH PETITION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Revision Petition against order dismissing Suspension of Sentence

Facts of the Case

Parveen Kumar … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab … Respondent

FIR No.50 dated 23.4.2014, Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar was lodged at the instance of Raju Kiamat wherein he alleged that on 23.4.2014, he was going to Mandi Phillaur in connection with some domestic work and at that time one Raju Kiamat was going on his tractor ahead of him
It is alleged that when they reached near Baba Rishi Kutiya Mandir on GT Road, a truck i.e. Canter bearing Registration No. DL-I-GC- 0406 came from Phagwara side without blowing any horn, at a high speed and hit against the tractor-trolley in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the tractor-trolley driven by Raju Kiamat turned turtle and Raju Kiamat fell down from his tractor and sustained multiple grievous injuries. It is further the case of prosecution that the Canter driver fled away from the spot after leaving his Canter at the spot. It is further the case of prosecution that although Raju Kiamat was taken to Civil Hospital, Phillaur from where he was referred to DMC Ludhiana but he succumbed to his injuries.
After investigation, a challan was presented against the petitioner Parveen Kumar and who was tried by the Court of learned JMIC Phillaur for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC. The learned JMIC, Phillaur vide his judgment dated 22.9.2017 held the petitioner guilty of having committed offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC while acquitting him of the charges framed under Section 427 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced as under :-
Under Section Sentence In default of fine 304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two To further undergo Rigorous years and to pay fine of ` 4000/-. Imprisonment for one month. 279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six To further undergo Rigorous months and to pay fine of ` 500/-. Imprisonment for 10 days.
Aggrieved by his conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 9.9.2019.
The instant petition has been filed by petitioner Parveen Kumar challenging judgment dated 9.9.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC as recorded by JMIC Phillaur, has been dismissed.

ALSO READ- APPEAL AND REVISION—CRIMINAL

Issues Involved

The main issue regarding this revision partition was also an ground for challenge that the accused was not properly identified and as such, cannot be connected with the occurrence in question.

Judgement on settled laws

Allahabad High Court

Asharfi And Anr. Vs The State on 19 May, 1960

The High court laid down the THEORY OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE : Facts which establish the identity of any person or thing whose identity is relevant are, by virtue of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, always relevant. The term ‘identification’ means proving that a person, subject or article before the Court is the very same that he or it is alleged, charged or reputed to be. Identification is almost always a matter of opinion or belief.

With regard to a criminal offence identification has a two-fold object : first, to satisfy the investigating authorities, before sending a case for trial to Court, that the person arrested but not previously known to the witnesses was one o those who committed the crime, or the property concerned was the subject of such crime; second, to satisfy the Court that the accused was the real offender or the article was concerned with the crime which is being tried.

Madras High Court

Muthaya Thevan And Anr. Vs King-Emperor on 15 September, 1926

The Court Stated that Evidence about the identification of a stranger is perhaps the most elusive, and the Courts are generally agreed that the evidence of identification of a stranger based on a personal impression, even if the veracity of the witness is above board, should be approached with consiable caution, because a variety of conditions must be fulfilled before evidence based on the impression can become worthy of credence. What these conditions are, and what the duty of the Court is in considering them

ALSO READ- CRIMINAL APPEAL & SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE IN SESSIONS HIGH COURT

Findings of the Court

This court noticed same as the trial and lower appellee court that the FIR in question was lodged by Sukhwinder Singh who had witnessed the accident as the deceased was going on his tractor ahead of the complainant who was also going in the same direction in connection with his household work. specific case of the prosecution and has been specifically stated by PW-1 Sukhwinder in his testimony stated that the petitioner Parveen Kumar after causing the accident left his Canter at the spot and fled away.

Sukhwinder Singh specifically deposed that he had seen the driver and has also identified him in the Court.

This court also noticed that the petitioner who was the driver of the Canter in question was produced by none else but the owner of the Canter i.e. by Satish Kumar on 25.4.2014. Since the involvement of the truck in question in the accident is not in dispute and the owner of the truck in question had himself produced his driver i.e. the petitioner, there can hardly be any doubt regarding the identification of the driver i.e. the petitioner.

This court noticed that even at that time the Petitioner had every right to question the owner of the canter but he never did that which is also the proof that he at that time agreed and placed no objection related to his identification as the convict/defendant in this case.

ALSO READ- CRIMINAL REVISION PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH PETITION

Conclusion

After examining all the facts of the matter and hearing both the sides This Honorable court while stating that The trial Court as well as the lower appellate court had both marshalled the evidence meticulously leading to the findings of guilt of the petitioner stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any infirmity in the findings as recorded by the trial Court pertaining to guilt of the petitioner.

This Honorable court found no ground for any interference in the findings of conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC as recorded by learned JMIC and as affirmed by the Court of Sessions in appeal.

Revision petition was found to be of no merit and hence dismissed.

This post is written by Pushkar Yadav.

For case specific advice, call best/top/expert Criminal Revision Lawyers of Chandigarh High Court (Punjab Haryana).