Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj partly allowed a truck driver’s revision petition by sustaining his conviction for rash and negligent driving that caused a fatal accident, but reducing the substantive custodial sentence to the period already undergone, while keeping the fine and default sentence intact. The case concerned allegations that the petitioner, while driving a goods vehicle in a transport-area parking zone at night, hit a pedestrian truck owner/driver from behind and ran over his head, causing death on the spot. The Court noted that the trial and appellate courts’ findings of guilt would stand, but held that the prolonged passage of time, custody already served, and the petitioner’s subsequent law-abiding conduct were mitigating factors justifying a reduction in the jail term.

The criminal revision petition arose from a road accident that occurred on 06 April 2006 in the transport area of Chandigarh. The prosecution case was initiated on the statement of a cleaner accompanying a truck owner, who was fatally injured after being hit from behind by another truck while walking in the parking area at night. The injured person fell on the ground and was subsequently run over, resulting in death at the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended at the site, and a First Information Report was registered at the concerned police station.

Also Read: When Marriage Exists Only On Paper Due To Prolonged Litigation, Better To End Ties: Supreme Court Allows Husband’s Appeal, Restores Divorce After 24-Year Separation

Following investigation, the accused was sent for trial for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court framed charges and examined six prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, investigating officer, medical witness, and documentary witnesses. The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not lead defence evidence.

The trial court convicted the accused and imposed concurrent sentences of imprisonment with fine. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed both conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition challenging the findings on merits and, alternatively, seeking reduction of sentence

The High Court examined the findings of the courts below and noted that the appellate court had already addressed the principal defence arguments. The Court observed that “the statement as made by PW-1 inspires confidence that witness has given truthful version.” It was recorded that the presence of pits or poor lighting did not negate the prosecution case, as “simply because the deceased fell down in a pit after hitting with the truck, it cannot be said that he was not hit by the offending truck.”

On the issue of intoxication, the Court stated that “there is no evidence that the deceased was under the influence of liquor.” Relying on the post-mortem findings, it was noted that the nature of injuries — including multiple skull fractures and crushed facial bones — “could be caused only if the deceased was run over by a heavy substance.” The Court further observed that bloodstains on the ground and tyre of the offending vehicle corroborated the ocular version.

While declining to interfere with the conviction, the Court recorded that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible. The Court observed that “no illegality, perversity, impropriety or misappreciation of evidence has been pointed out.”

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "I find that the protracted criminal trial and the consequent agony faced by the petitioner, the actual sentence, out of total sentence, already undergone by the petitioner, the reformative tendency shown by the petitioner by not indulging in any other offence as well as the legal principles reproduced above are sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner."

Also Read: Law Must Bend Toward Inclusion For Persons With Disabilities; Punjab And Haryana High Court Grants Retrospective Promotions With Consequential Benefits Under RPwD Quota To Visually Impaired Forest Employee

The Court ordered: “The present petition is accordingly partly allowed. While the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, as well as the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 21.08.2012, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner are affirmed, however, the order on quantum of sentence dated 06.05.2010 is modified and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence regarding fine and punishment in default thereof is maintained.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

For the Respondent: Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh

Case Title: Pawan Kumar v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:162528
Case Number: CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj