Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has not too long ago modified and diminished the sentence of a truck driver whose rash and negligent driving brought on demise of a bike rider, on the bottom that he’s first time offender and the incident happened nearly 11 years in the past.
Within the current case, the petitioner is a first-time offender and the incidence is nearly 11 years outdated, subsequently, in view of the aforesaid judgments, I modify the sentence and cut back it to a interval of 1 ½ years.
The bench comprising Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was listening to a revision petition towards the judgment of Periods Decide vide which the enchantment most popular by the petitioner towards the judgment of conviction and order of sentence handed by Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace was dismissed.
The first competition of the petitioner was that the prosecution couldn’t set up that he was driving in a rash and negligent method. He additional contended that all the case of the prosecution was primarily based on the statements of PW1 and PW2 (eye-witnesses), who’re the brother-in-law and sister of the deceased and being associated to one another couldn’t be believed and have falsely implicated him.
The Courtroom noticed that Petitioner’s argument that the eye-witnesses couldn’t be believed as they had been shut family members of the deceased doesn’t carry a lot weight. It additional discovered no motive within the argument that the mentioned eye witnesses would implicate the petitioner and exonerate the precise accused.
Maintaining in view the aforesaid details, it is stands proved with none doubt in any way that the demise of the deceased was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and he has been duly and correctly recognized by the witnesses.
Thus, the offence having been clearly established from the model of the eye-witnesses and the fabric on file, the court docket discovered no motive to intervene with the well-reasoned judgments of the Trial court docket and discovered Decrease Appellate Courtroom thereby dismissing the moment revision petition.
With regard to the imposition of sentence, the court docket positioned reliance on the Supreme Courtroom’s judgement in State of Punjab Versus Saurabh Bakshi, 2015(2) RCR (Felony) 495, and this Excessive Courtroom’s choice in Jaswant Singh Versus State of Punjab 2020(1) RCR (Felony) 163 thereby coming to the conclusion that the petitioner being a first-time offender within the incidence that happened nearly 11 years in the past deserves modification of his sentence to an extent of 1 ½ years.
Accordingly, the court docket dismissed the moment revision petition with modification in sentence however preserving the quantum of effective and sentence in default intact.
Case Title: Yusuf Versus State of Haryana
Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Order