IN THE

117

Jatinder Kumar

State of Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE

Present :- Mr.

for

Mr.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

The

judgment dated

Hoshiarpur in CIS

and order of sentence

Magistrate, Hoshiarpur

out of FIR No.172

427 of the Indian

been partially allowed

awarded by the

as under:-

Sr. No.

1.

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR- 2520

Reserved

Pronounced

@ Jindri

VERSUS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD

Mr. Piyush Khanna and Mr. Karajveer

the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab.

*****

BHARDWAJ, J.

The instant revision petition has

dated 18.07.2025 passed by the

CIS No.CRA-248-2017, whereby

sentence dated 10.07.2017 passed

Hoshiarpur in case bearing registration

No.172 dated 28.12.2013 registered

Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station

allowed while maintaining the

Trial Court was modified by the

No. Under Section

Section 279 IPC

PUNJAB & HARYANA

CHANDIGARH

2520-2025 (O&M)

on: 06.11.2025

Pronounced on: 26.11.2025

...Petitioner

...Respondent

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Karajveer Singh, Advocates,

Punjab.

been preferred against the

Additional Sessions Judge,

whereby the judgment of conviction

passed by the Chief Judicial

registration No.CHI/385/2014 arising

registered under Sections 279, 304-A,

Station City, Hoshiarpur had

conviction, the punishment

the Appellate Court and reads

Punishment by Ld.

Appellate Court

RI for 6 months and

fine of Rs.1,000/-and in

default thereof to

undergo further RI for

a month.

2

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

2. Section 304-A IPC RI for 1 year and fine of

Rs.4,000/- and in

default thereof to

undergo further RI for

a month.

Both sentences were order to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case are that the

complainant, Tarsem Lal, who is engaged in the business of selling fodder,

was travelling on 28.12.2013, at about 5:30 p.m., on his scooter bearing

Registration No. PB-07-J-9429, accompanied by one Brij Mohan Sharma.

His son, Pawan Kumar, aged about 35 years, was travelling ahead of them

on a separate Activa bearing Registration No. PB-07-AD-6256.When they

reached in front of Sood Forex Western Union, Pahari Katra, a truck bearing

Registration No. PB-08-BQ-3511 approached from the opposite direction at

a high speed and the same was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The said truck struck the Activa of Pawan Kumar. Due to the impact, Pawan

Kumar fell on the road and the rear tyre of the truck ran over him, crushing

his head and other body parts, resulting in his instantaneous death.While the

complainant and Brij Mohan Sharma were attending to the injured Pawan

Kumar, the driver of the truck alighted from the vehicle and fled from the

spot, abandoning the truck. The complainant thereafter prayed for

appropriate legal action against the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid information, a formal FIR was

registered. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan and also clicked

photographs of the place of incident. Inquest of the dead body was prepared

and post-mortem was conducted. The petitioner was eventually arrested. An

3

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

identification memo was also prepared. The relevant documents, including

the registration certificate, driving licence, insurance policy in original, and a

photocopy of the permit pertaining to the offending vehicle, were taken into

police possession through separate recovery memos. Statements of the

witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was

presented against the petitioner.

4. Finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 279, 304-A

IPC was framed against the accused person, to which accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

5. To establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1, Inspector

(Retd.) Harpal Singh, the Investigating Officer of the present matter. He

deposed that on 28.12.2013, while posted at Police Station City, Hoshiarpur,

he received information regarding an accident involving a truck and an

Activa scooter in the area of Pahari Katra, Hoshiarpur. He immediately

proceeded to the spot where the complainant, Tarsem Lal, recorded his

statement (Ex. PA). The witness made his endorsement (Ex. PB) on the said

statement and sent the ruqa through PHG Bhagat Ram, on the basis of which

the formal FIR (Ex. PC) was registered by ASI Jagat Singh, whose

signatures he duly identified. He further stated that he recorded the statement

of Brij Mohan, marked as Ex. PC/1. He prepared the rough site plan (Ex.

PD) and took into police custody both the Activa scooter and the truck

involved in the accident vide recovery memos Ex. PE and Ex. PF. H.C. Raj

Kumar, photographer, was called to the spot, and he clicked photographs of

the accident vehicles. Inspector Harpal Singh also prepared the inquest

4

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

report (Ex. PG) of the deceased, whose body was identified by Ravinder

Singh and Ramesh Thakur. Their statements were recorded as Ex. PH and

Ex. PH/1, respectively. He moved an application (Ex. PJ) for conducting the

post-mortem examination, after which the dead body of Pawan Kumar was

handed over to his relatives vide receipt Ex. PK. On 29.12.2013, H.C. Raj

Kumar produced six photographs of the accident vehicles, which were taken

into possession vide memo Ex. PK/1. On 30.12.2013, the witness arrested

the accused Jatinder Kumar and prepared the arrest memo Ex. PL. The

complainant, Tarsem Lal, identified the accused, and an identification memo

Ex. PM was prepared accordingly. The accused produced the Registration

Certificate of the offending truck, his driving licence, the permit, and the

insurance documents, all of which were taken into police possession vide

memo Ex. PN. On 04.01.2014 and 14.01.2014, ASI Avtar Singh conducted a

mechanical inspection of the recovered vehicles and submitted his reports.

The Investigating Officer further stated that he verified the Registration

Certificates of the recovered vehicles as well as the driving licence of the

accused, and recorded the statements of relevant witnesses. After completion

of the investigation, the challan was prepared by Inspector Prem Kumar,

whose signatures he identified. The witness also identified the accused

present in Court.

6. The prosecution next examined PW-2, HC Raj Kumar,

photographer. He deposed that on 28.12.2013 he was summoned to Pahari

Katra, Hoshiarpur, where he photographed the accidented vehicles, namely

the truck bearing Registration No. PB-08-BQ-3511 and the Activa scooter

5

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

bearing Registration No. PB-07-AD-6256. The photographs so taken are

exhibited as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6.

7. PW-3, ASI Avtar Singh, deposed that on 04.01.2014 he

conducted the mechanical inspection of the truck bearing Registration No.

PB-08-BQ-3511 and prepared the mechanical test report, which is exhibited

as Ex. PW3/A. He further proved the mechanical inspection report of the

Activa scooter bearing Registration No. PB-07-AD-6256, exhibited as Ex.

PW3/B.

8. PW-4, Dr. Jaswinder Singh, Medical Officer, tendered his duly

sworn affidavit Ex. PW4/A, wherein he deposed that he conducted the post-

mortem examination on the deceased, Pawan Kumar Sharma. He proved the

copy of the post-mortem report, exhibited as Ex. PW4/B, along with its

pictorial diagram, exhibited as Ex. PW4/C.

9. PW-5 (wrongly recorded as PW-4), Tarsem Lal, the

complainant and an eyewitness, reiterated the version contained in his earlier

statement Ex. PA, which need not be reproduced herein to avoid repetition.

He further deposed that he received the dead body of his son on 29.12.2013

vide receipt Ex. PK. He stated that on 30.12.2013, he visited the police

station to ascertain the progress of the investigation, during which the police

produced certain individuals before him. Out of those persons, he identified

the accused, Rajinder Kumar @ Jinderi, as the person who had fled from the

spot after abandoning the truck. An identification memo, Ex. PM, was

accordingly prepared. The witness also identified the accused present in

Court, as well as the truck and the Activa scooter produced in the Court.

6

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

10. PW-6 (wrongly recorded as PW-5), Brij Mohan Sharma, an

eyewitness, reiterated the facts already narrated by PW-5 Tarsem Lal. He

further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police under Section

175 Cr.P.C., which is exhibited as Ex. PC/1, and he identified his signatures

thereon. He stated that he had identified the dead body and had signed Form

No. 2535 in that regard. The witness also identified the accused present in

Court.

11. PW-7 (wrongly recorded as PW-6), Ravinder Kaur, Clerk from

the DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, deposed that she had produced the screen

report pertaining to Registration Certificate No. PB-07-AD-6254. She stated

that the original Registration Certificate attached with the judicial file,

exhibited as Ex. PW6/A, is correct as per the official record. She further

proved the driving licence of Pawan Kumar, which is exhibited as Ex.

PW6/B.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also

tendered in evidence the copy of the driving licence of the accused, Jatinder

Kumar, exhibited as Ex. PAA, as well as the Registration Certificate of the

truck bearing No. PB-08-BQ-3511, exhibited as Ex. PAB. With these

documents, the prosecution evidence was formally closed.

13. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the

prosecution evidence were put to the accused in his statement under section

313 Cr.P.C to which accused pleaded that he is innocent and has not

committed any offence and the present case is false. He further pleaded that

he was not driving the truck in question at the time of accident.

7

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

14. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the parties were heard, and

thereafter the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the

commission of the offence under Section 304-A IPC, vide order dated

10.07.2017.

15. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before the Court of Sessions. The appeal was dismissed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 18.07.2025 insofar

as the conviction was concerned; however, the sentence imposed upon the

petitioner was modified and reduced to one year for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC.Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court

by way of the present revision petition.

16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that the prosecution case suffers from material discrepancies in the

testimonies recorded, and that the essential element of negligence on the part

of the petitioner has not been established. It is contended that the

eyewitnesses have furnished no description of the petitioner in terms of

physical features or distinctive marks of identification on the basis of which

he could be recognized as the driver of the offending vehicle. It is argued

that this lapse assumes significance as both the material prosecution

witnesses i.e. PW-5 Tarsem Lal and PW-6 Brij Mohan Sharma specifically

admitted that the petitioner was not previously known to them. Learned

counsel further submits that although the prosecution has contended that the

vehicle was driven rashly and negligently, PW-1, the Investigating Officer,

stated in his examination-in-chief that the truck was travelling at a speed of

8

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

merely 20–30 km/hr at the time of the accident. It is argued that such speed,

cannot be characterised as excessive or indicative of rash driving. Counsel

additionally points out the absence of skid marks at the spot and asserts that

this circumstance negates any inference of rashness or negligence on part of

the petitioner.

17. Upon being confronted with the concurrent findings of both the

Courts regarding the identification of the petitioner and the mode and

manner of the occurrence, learned counsel fairly states that he would confine

his submissions to the quantum of sentence alone and gives up challenge to

the conviction.

18. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal

No. 2133 of 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 686, to contend that the benefit of

probation under the Probation of Offenders Act can be extended even in

cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents. It is submitted that both Courts

failed to consider the petitioner’s prayer for release on probation, moreso

when he does not suffer from any criminal antecedents and is not

disqualified for the said benefit. The following mitigating circumstances are

pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner :

i. The incident occurred in the year 2013, and nearly twelve years have

elapsed since its occurrence. The petitioner has endured the agony and

rigours of criminal prosecution for twelve long years.

ii. He is the sole breadwinner of his family and any further incarceration

would disproportionately affect his dependents and cause undue hardship

to them.

9

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

iii. The surrounding circumstances do not indicate any gross negligence or

rashness. The vehicle was being driven at a slow pace in a congested

area.

iv. The petitioner had momentarily halted the vehicle and fled the scene only

out of fear of the crowd that had gathered, and such conduct ought not to

be construed as an attempt at evasion from legal process.

v. The petitioner voluntarily appeared before the authorities on 30.12.2013,

i.e., the very next day after the occurrence, demonstrating bona fides and

absence of intent to abscond.

vi. The petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents. He has not been

involved in any criminal case in the more than ten years since the

incident.

vii. The nature of the occurrence does not necessarily suggest rash or

negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, who was operating a pick-

up vehicle at the relevant time.

19. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, reiterates the findings

recorded by the Courts below and submits that the eyewitnesses have

specifically identified the petitioner and have withstood the test of cross-

examination with respect to the mode and manner in which the incident

occurred. It is argued that such concurrent findings ought not to be interfered

with at this stage.The State Counsel has, however, failed to furnish any

justification as to why the benefit of probation for a period of one year ought

not to be extended to the petitioner, particularly when it stands admitted that

the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

10

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

20. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along

with the present petition.

21. Insofar as the objection raised by the respondent-State that the

concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts ought not to be interfered

with at this stage is concerned, the contention requires no further

consideration, as the petitioner has expressly given up his challenge to the

conviction and has confined his prayer solely to the quantum of sentence and

has prayed for grant of benefit of probation.

22. Undisputedly, the offence under Section 304-A IPC prescribes a

maximum sentence of two years. It is also an admitted position that the

petitioner has already undergone actual custody of approximately four

months in the present case, whereas the sentence, as modified by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, already stands reduced to one year. The

attending circumstances lend credibility to the mitigating factors urged by

the petitioner. The incident does not, on the face of it, reflect absolute or

extreme rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner, when viewed in

the totality of circumstances. The petitioner has remained embroiled in

criminal proceedings for nearly twelve years and is possessed of clean

antecedents. There is no material to suggest that he has been involved in any

other offence either prior to or subsequent to the present incident. There is

also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was under the influence

of any intoxicating substance at the time of the occurrence. The fact that the

incident occurred in December 2013, after sunset, further indicates that

certain external contributory factors may not be entirely ruled out. It is also

11

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

not disputed that the family of the deceased has received compensation and

has thereby been suitably recompensed for the unfortunate loss suffered.

23. Furthermore, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958, as distinguished from Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, are intended to extend the benefit of probation to first-time offenders

involved in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years,

so as to encourage reform on the basis of good conduct and absence of prior

criminal involvement. Indeed, the absence of a previous conviction is a

prerequisite under Section 360 Cr.P.C. The jurisprudential foundation for

granting probation, whether on account of good conduct or even after

admonition, rests upon the principle that every individual deserves a second

opportunity, and that where an accused has demonstrated sustained lawful

behaviour, reformative considerations ought to guide the sentencing process.

The reformative approach, rather than a purely punitive or retributive one,

assumes predominance in such circumstances.

24. The aims and object of the Probation Act came to be decided by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of

Bihar reported as (1972) 2 SCC 633., wherein the Supreme Court, while

considering the scope of the Probation Act, has held that the benefit of

probation is ordinarily extended to cases where the circumstances indicate a

mere minor conflict with law instead of inherent criminal propensity or

conduct reflecting a hardened or incorrigible disposition. The object of the

Probation of Offenders Act is reformative and rehabilitative and not

punitive. It aims to reintegrate an offender into the mainstream of society

where such reintegration appears feasible. The aforesaid position was

12

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chellammal and

Another v. State reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 870. The relevant extract

of the judgment is as under: -

”26. On consideration of the precedents and based on a

comparative study of Section 360, Cr. P.C. and subsection (1)

of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the

latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former.

Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender,

more twenty-one years old, on probation when he is sentenced

to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of

the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in

any case where the offender is found to have committed an

offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than

death or life imprisonment. Additionally, the non-obstante

clause in sub-section gives overriding effect to sub-section (1)

of Section 4 over any other law for the time being in force. Also,

it is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr. P.C. itself, being a

subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case

where the court could have dealt with an accused under the

provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall

record in its judgment the special reasons therefor.

27. What logically follows from a conjoint reading of

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section

361, Cr. P.C. is that if Section 360, Cr. P.C. were not

applicable in a particular case, there is no reason why Section

13

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

4 of the Probation Act would not be attracted.

28. Summing up the legal position, it can be said that

while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation

as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the

statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and

the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability

of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless

applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances

stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are

attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its

consideration release of the offender on probation; on the

contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider

whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon

fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of

probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in

its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may

upon considering the report of the probation officer impose

such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the

answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for

the court to record the reasons therefor.”

25. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the

petitioner possesses a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct poses any

threat to society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence,

no adverse presumption can be drawn against him.

26. Moreover, this Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v.

14

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

State of Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that

sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender’s

background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance.

Mere involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality;

instead, the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act,

antecedents, conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore,

distinguishes between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens

rea, recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be

presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid

judgment are as follows:

32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial

function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying

purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This

balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but

also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is

administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the

prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies,

requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the

changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found

early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in

his authoritative work “Criminology,” observed that:

”If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest

effect upon the behavior of a person, it must follow

soon after the act for which it is given. But

punishment always takes place weeks or even

15

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

months after the offense has been committed, since

the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and

convicted. Such delay tends to disconnect the

punishment from the offense in the mind of the

offender, and it may well be considered as merely

another painful experience in an unjust world.”

33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare

Beccaria, in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and

Punishments,” propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony,

emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system

rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary

to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment,

being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue,

must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The

imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot

extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of

social order.

34. While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen

regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus

on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the

negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the

rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the

circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical,

physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the

offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit

16

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It

aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation

of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish

between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’.

35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish

two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for

sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not

necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’ ‘Criminality’ in

mind and action has to be determined from the totality of

circumstances including the mode and manner in committing

an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal

antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and

not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an

offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be

beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering

whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from

actions propelled by mens rea.

36. The case in hand is yet another where interest of

justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to

a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the

judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but

rather to shape the framework within which individuals

perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best

interests.

17

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

27. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

present case and the mitigating circumstances enumerated above, I deem it

appropriate to direct release of the petitioner on probation on his furnishing

an undertaking of keeping peace and good behaviour for one year to the

satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner shall also remain under

the supervision of the concerned probation officer during the aforesaid

period. In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with the said direction

or committing breach of the undertaking given by him, he shall be called

upon to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him in the

present case.

28. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. While the

conviction of the petitioner is affirmed, the order on sentence dated

10.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, in Case No.

CHI/385/2014, as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 18.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The sentence

directing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to

pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- is also quashed. The petitioner is ordered to be

released on probation on the basis of good conduct for a period of one year.

29. As Montesquieu observed, the certainty of mild yet consistent

punishment serves as a far greater deterrent than the transient severity of

harsh sentences. Guided by this enduring principle, it is directed that the

petitioner shall also be liable to perform community service of plantation of

50 indigenous trees by approaching the Divisional Forest Officer,

Hoshiarpur and for their maintenance for a period of 05 years.

30. In the event of the petitioner not being in the capacity to

18

117 CRR-2520-2025(O&M)

deposit the cost of maintenance for a period of 05 years, he shall offer his

services to the department of forests to set off the said cost as per the wages

of an unskilled workers equal to adequate labour men hours for the

equivalent period as prescribed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

31. The instant petition is partly allowed.

32. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

26.11.2025 JUDGE

Sumit Gusain

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No