250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RULDU SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present 08.02.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, have been stemming from FIR No.44 dated 12.03.2003 registered under Sections 304 A/427 of IPC at Police Station Bhawanigarh. The petitioner was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence under Section(s) 304-A 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Rasaldar JC 238168, Ambala Cantt came to the police Station Bhawanigarh and got recorded his statement to the effect that at about 6:30 AM, as per order of the Unit, they proceeded in vehicle No.BA99D116352K from Ambala Cantt vehicle being driven b Ram Kumar along with weapon sitting at the rear seat of the vehicle. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RULDU SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present revision is preferred against the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, have been stemming from FIR No.44 dated 12.03.2003 registered under Sections 304 A/427 of IPC at Police Station Bhawanigarh. The petitioner was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence under RI for two years default of which, to undergo imprisonment for 03 months. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Rasaldar JC 238168, Ambala Cantt came to the police Station Bhawanigarh and got recorded his statement to the effect that at about 6:30 AM, as per order of the Unit, they proceeded in vehicle No.BA99D116352K from Ambala Cantt driven by driver No.15469245L SOW H Ram Kumar along with weapon sitting at the rear seat of the vehicle. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-426-2011 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. revision is preferred against the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, have been upheld in the case stemming from FIR No.44 dated 12.03.2003 registered under Sections 304- A/427 of IPC at Police Station Bhawanigarh. The petitioner was sentenced as Sentence with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which, to undergo imprisonment for 03 In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2003, Naib Rasaldar JC 238168, Ambala Cantt came to the police Station Bhawanigarh and got recorded his statement to the effect that at about 6:30 AM, as per order of the Unit, they proceeded in vehicle No.BA99D116352K from Ambala Cantt in army y driver No.15469245L SOW Hoshiar Singh and one SOW Ram Kumar along with weapon sitting at the rear seat of the vehicle. At about in default of which, to undergo imprisonment for 03 MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-426-2011 8:40 AM, a bus bearing No.PB driven in rash and negligent manner, hit their vehicl which, SOW Ram Kumar received multiple injuries and died on arrival in Military Hospital at Patiala. Bus driver fled away from the spot. Later on inquiry, he came to know that bus was driven by Ruldu Singh (petitioner herein). Hence, FIR ( 3. After Court convicted and sentenced the 04.04.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Courts below have fell into grave error by convicting the petitioner. He further contends that the FIR ( Rasaldar, however, he was not produced in the Court. investigating officer reached at the spot at about 3:30 PM, one tyre of the bus was on road and it was on extreme left side of the road and even photogr produced on record also show that the bus was standing on extreme left side of the road. He further submits that statement of PW contradictory as he stated before the police that when he tried to overtake the milk tanker, the b while deposing in the Court, he stated that he did not try to overtake the milk tanker. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law 2 a bus bearing No.PB-11U-6752 came from the opposite side, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit their vehicl which, SOW Ram Kumar received multiple injuries and died on arrival in Military Hospital at Patiala. Bus driver fled away from the spot. Later on inquiry, he came to know that bus was driven by Ruldu Singh (petitioner FIR (supra) was registered. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment and order dated Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Courts below have fell into grave error by convicting the petitioner. He further contends that the FIR (supra) was registered on the statement made by Naib Rasaldar, however, he was not produced in the Court. investigating officer reached at the spot at about 3:30 PM, one tyre of the bus was on road and it was on extreme left side of the road and even photogr produced on record also show that the bus was standing on extreme left side of the road. He further submits that statement of PW contradictory as he stated before the police that when he tried to overtake the milk tanker, the bus came from the opposite side and hit the vehicle, however, while deposing in the Court, he stated that he did not try to overtake the milk Per contra, learned State counsel learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law 6752 came from the opposite side, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit their vehicle from behind. Due to which, SOW Ram Kumar received multiple injuries and died on arrival in Military Hospital at Patiala. Bus driver fled away from the spot. Later on inquiry, he came to know that bus was driven by Ruldu Singh (petitioner assessing the material available on record, the learned trial vide judgment and order dated petitioner preferred an appeal, before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have fell into grave error by convicting the petitioner. He further n the statement made by Naib Rasaldar, however, he was not produced in the Court. Furthermore, when the investigating officer reached at the spot at about 3:30 PM, one tyre of the bus was on road and it was on extreme left side of the road and even photographs produced on record also show that the bus was standing on extreme left side of the road. He further submits that statement of PW-6 Hoshiar Singh is self contradictory as he stated before the police that when he tried to overtake the us came from the opposite side and hit the vehicle, however, while deposing in the Court, he stated that he did not try to overtake the milk , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by and submits that he has been convicted by the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law, MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-426-2011 which has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court. interference by this Court is not warranted. 6. Having heard perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than conviction, the live a peaceful life. 7. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 as under:- “6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be rele A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 Kishan Kaul, has held as under: “6. We may notice that the Statement of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformati rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” 3 which has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court. interference by this Court is not warranted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than conviction, the petitioner has grown into law- live a peaceful life. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held “6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct.....” A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has held as under:- “6. We may notice that the Statement of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformati rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” which has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court. As such the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 22 years. Since his -abiding citizen and desires to Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held “6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall ased on probation of good conduct.....” A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir speaking through Justice Sanjay “6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-426-2011 Further still, a Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 has opined as follows: “15. sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section clause, giving overriding 16. statutes, we find that the addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law rehabilitation of youthful offenders” 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the harde habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition is 4 Further still, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in l @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 opined as follows: We find that the attention of the Court was not drawn to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the 1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the we find that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or ilitation of youthful offenders” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the harde habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1) The judgment dated 08.02.2011 Sessions Judge, Sangrur confirming the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. 2) The order of sentence dated learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in l @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 attention of the Court was not drawn to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful of the 1958 Act has a non obstante effect over any other provisions of law. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or for the time being in force for the treatment, training or Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act and Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant disposed of in the following terms:- 08.02.2011 passed by learned confirming the conviction of the The order of sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, is MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-426-2011 10. Needless to say in view of the Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, been upheld by learned Sessions Judge, 08.02.2011, shall not be a hurdle to benefits and other service benefit April 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 5 modified to the extent of granting the conces to the petitioner for good conduct. 3) The petitioner shall be released on probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of surety for the same amount furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. 4) The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. the petitioner fails to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking be called upon to undergo the sente the learned trial Court. Needless to say in view of the Section 12 of Probation of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, been upheld by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, shall not be a hurdle to petitioner benefits and other service benefits to which he is (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable modified to the extent of granting the concession of probation for good conduct. shall be released on probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with a surety for the same amount within four weeks, after furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. If to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking rendered by him, he shall be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed upon him by Needless to say in view of the Section 12 of Probation of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, which have Sangrur, vide judgment dated petitioner, in any way, to get retiral he is entitled to. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment