1

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SEMESTER III

LAW OF CRIMES I
PROJECT-II

State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh and Ors.

[(2012) 2 SCC 182]

SUBMITTED TO
Ms. Divya Salim

SUBMITTED BY
Samarth Mehrotra
(2019BALLB10)

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the case analysis – “State of Punjab Vs. Balwinder Singh and
Ors.” has been prepared and submitted by Samarth Mehrotra who is currently pursuing
their BALLB at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of Law of Crime
I course. It is also certified that this is an original case analysis and this has not been
submitted to any other university, nor published in any journal.

Date-
Signature of the student-
Signature of Research Supervisor-

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would
like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Divya Salim for guiding me
throughout the development of this paper into a coherent whole by providing helpful
insights and sharing her brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of the
Gyan Mandir, NLIU for helping us to find the appropriate research material for this study.
I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support and
encouragement.

Samarth Mehrotra
2019BALLB10

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 4

NAME OF THE CASE ....................................................................................................... 5

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT .......................................................................................... 5

CITATION OF THE JUDGEMENT .................................................................................. 5

TYPE OF BENCH .............................................................................................................. 5

NAME OF THE JUDGES .................................................................................................. 5

NUMBER & TYPE OF OPINION/S ................................................................................. 5

AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT .................................................................................... 5

COUNSELS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES ............................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 6

FACTUAL MATRIX ......................................................................................................... 8

ISSUES ............................................................................................................................... 8

CONTENTIONS ................................................................................................................. 8

PROVISIONS OF STATUTES CITED ............................................................................. 9

DOCTRINES/THEORIES INVOKED ............................................................................ 10

LITEREATURE CITED ................................................................................................... 10

PRECEDENTS CITED .................................................................................................... 10

JUDGEMENT................................................................................................................... 14

REASONING ................................................................................................................... 16

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... 16

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

5

NAME OF THE CASE

STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT

6TH JANUARY, 2012

CITATION OF THE JUDGEMENT

(2002) 2 SCC 182

TYPE OF BENCH

IT WAS AN APPEAL BEFORE A FULL BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT.

NAME OF THE JUDGES

P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar,JJ.

NUMBER & TYPE OF OPINION/S

THE BENCH GAVE A SINGLE OPINION ON BEHALF OF ALL THE JUSTICES.

AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT

JUSTICE MOHAMMAD HIDAYATULLAH.

COUNSELS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES

APPELLANT: -

Adv. Prem Sharma and Adv. Rakesh Sinha.

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

6

RESPONDENT: -

Adv. Brij Bans Kishore and Adv. R.N. Sachthey

INTERVENORS/ AMICUS: -

Not Applicable.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

The present case in the hand deals Criminal Revision Petition that was filed by 2 appellants
against the common final judgement and order that was passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appelants was convicted by the Judicail Magistrate first
class at Amritsar and was upheld by the ADJ under section 304A,337 and 279 of Indian
Penal Code for rash and negligent driving of automobile and that cause the life of 5
innocents travelling in the bus. By the order of Judicial Magistrate both the accused persons
were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 year each for the offence under
Section 304A and fine was imposed of rupees 200 and also imposed the rigorous
imprisonment fot two and six montheach for the offence that is punishable under Section
337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code. Then the accused herein fied the Criminal Revision
Petition being quanater of offence and quantum of sentence before High Court ,where in
the High Court while confining to the confining to the question of quantum of sentence
only, reduced the sentence of the accused persons to the period already undergone (15 days)
and in addition thereto, enhanced the fine to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each. Thereafter
Against the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab has filed the appeals before
Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions. Where the Supreme Court setting aside
the high court decision said [“Lenient view not permissible-Reasoning of High Court in
reducing sentence to period of imprisonment of 15 days cannot be accepted, merely
because fine enhanced to R 25,000 each. Also not sufficient to drastically reduce sentence,
Particularly five persons died due to negligent act of both drivers of bus and truck-
Impugned order of High Court set aside, Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months
with fine of R 5,000 each imposed.”]

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

7

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

8

FACTUAL MATRIX

On 30th Oct. 1992 the Dhian Singh (Complainant) was returning form Batala along with
his family members after attending last rites of one of the relatives in village Mustabad,
Amritsar from the Bus that was run by Jhang Transport (PB-02-D-9485). It was stated that
the bus driver (Res.1) was driving the bus at very high speed. As the bus reached Mudhal,
a truck driver (Res.2) who was driving the truck (PB-02-C-9665) coming from opposite
side was also in high speed .As stated that both the drivers was driving their vehicles rashly
and negligently due to which both the vehicles collided and as a result the two passenger
Darshan Singh who was the son of Bela Singh and Banso who was the wife of Ajit Singh
died on the spot where as other passengers Sonia, Dalbir Singh and Ramandeep were
heavily injured and taken to the hospital but later they were also reported dead due to heavy
injuries occurred in the accident.

ISSUES

Does court should be lenient to the accused on their past conviction, as they have caused
the death of five person by their negligent act.

CONTENTIONS

1. APPELLANT
 According to the Appellant as the negligence was proved beyond the
reasonable doubt, so there should be no leniency should be shown to the
accused.

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

9

2. RESPONDENT
 The Respondent prayed for prayed that “the sentence be reduced to the
period already undergone, they pointed out that they had suffered a
protracted trial for about 17 years and had already undergone custody for
15 days, therefore, prayed for lenient view by modifying the sentence”1.
3. INTERVENORS/AMICUS
Not Applicable.

PROVISIONS OF STATUTES CITED

The current case cited many provisions from the IPC dealing with causing death by rash
and negligent driving of automobiles.

1. Section 279:- Rash driving or riding on a public way

“Whoever drives any automobile, or travels, on any public way in a manner so reckless or
negligent as to en/danger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or damage to any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description for a period which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”2

2. Section 304A :- Causing death by negligence

“Whoever causes the death of any person by any act of rash or negligence that does not
amount to culpable homicide shall be punished by imprisonment of any description for a
period that may be extended to two years, or by a fine, or both”.3

3. Section 337:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

“Whoever causes injury to any person by performing any act so rashly or negligently as to
jeopardise human life or the personal protection of others, shall be punished with

1
State of Punjab vs Balwinder Singh and ors. AIR 2012 SC 861
2
Indian Penal code, Act no.45of 1860
3
Indian Penal Code, Act no.45of 1860

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

10

imprisonment for a period of up to six months, or with a fine of up to five hundred rupees,
or both”4.

DOCTRINES/THEORIES INVOKED

No such doctrine or theory was invoked in the judgement.

LITEREATURE CITED

No literature of any kind was cited by the learned Judges.

PRECEDENTS CITED

The judgement cited 2 cases that were relevant to the case at hand: -

1) Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana5

On 17.5.1995 on receipt of a ruqa from the doctor, CHC Rania, regarding admission of
injured Ram Partap (since deceased), Sub Inspector Ram Partap, visited the
hospital where the doctor produced before him a ruqa regarding death of Ram Partap,
Surja Ram, complainant, father of the deceased, was found present there near the dead
body. He made a statement to the effect that he had two sons, namely Banwari and Ram
Partap. Banwari had two sons, namely, Dalbir the accused and Om Parkash. Banwari
had already died two years ago. Ram Partap used to reside with him and they also
owned landed property in village Mameran, where family of Ram Partap used to reside
and cultivate the land. His deceased son Ram Partap had come to him three-four days
earlier for thrashing the wheat and when they were thrashing the wheat, at about 9.30
p.m. after stopping the operation of thrasher, Ram Partap went to nearby canal for
taking a bath. After some time, a jeep came and stopped near the bank of the canal and
in the meanwhile, five-six persons came down from the jeep and went near Ram Partap.
Accused Dalbir Singh raised a lalkara to Ram Partap deceased that he should be taught

4
Indian penal Code,1860
5
(2000) 5 SCC 82

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

11

a lesson for cultivating the land of his grand father. Complainant recognized the voice
of Dalbir and rushed towards them and saw that Dalbir had a tangli in his hands,
whereas other persons were armed with lathi, jallis and gandasis and were causing
injuries on his son Ram Partap. He raised an alarm as to why they were attacking Ram
Partap and on seeing him, all the assailants ran away with their respective weapons in
the said jeep and he did not know the names of the remaining persons. He further
disclosed that the relationship between them and Dalbir was strained, as he wanted to
take share of his land. His son became unconscious due to the injuries suffered by him.
He went to village for making arrangement of a jeep of one Sukh Ram at about 12.00
during night he shifted Ram Partap to CHC Rania for medical treatment, where doctor
treated Ram Partap and during treatment he succumbed to his injuries. Dalbir alongwith
his companions caused injuries to his son without any right. On the basis of this
statement, Ex. PD/1 and an endorsement made by Sub Inspector Amar Singh thereon,
a case was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer started the
investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses and thereafter sent the dead body
for autopsy.

Dr. Dharambir Singh conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram
Partap the deceased and found ten injuries on his person. He disclosed the cause of
death to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs, which
were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. Sub Inspector Amar Singh went to the place of occurrence and lifted blood
stained earth from there and sealed the same in a parcel and took it into possession after
preparing recovery memo of the same. He also recorded the statements of Kamla, the
widow and Durga, the daughter of Ram Partap deceased on the same day. From their
statements, it was revealed that in the evening on the previous day at about 7 P.M., they
were going to the fields to serve meals to Ram Partap Surja and others, who were
thrashing the wheat in the fields. When they passed near the house of Dalbir accused,
they saw a jeep bearing No.HR-44A 0856 standing in his courtyard and there Pala Jani,
Sube Singh, Krishan, Kuldeep and Parkash, all

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

12

accused, were talking to each other. They were known to these witnesses. Two persons
were sitting in the jeep and when these witnesses were returning from their fields
towards home and reached near the culvert of canal, the same jeep came near them and
stopped. From the side of the jeep, Dalbir asked them about the whereabouts of Ram
Partap, and they told him that he was in the fields. Then Dalbir asked Madan to take
the vehicle ahead. In the meantime, one person got down the jeep for urinating and
when the jeep started Sube Singh called him by the name of Devi Lal to come
immediately and then all of them occupied their seats in the jeep and went. They had
seen all the persons in the house of Dalbir in the evening and these witnesses came to
know that during night hours Dalbir and others had caused injuries to Ram Partap, who
died later on. After completion of necessary formalities, accused were sent up for trial.

Accused were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 148 read
with Section 149 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence led, more particularly, PW8 and
directed conviction and imposed sentences as aforenoted so far as appellant is
concerned and directed acquittal of co-accused. In appeal, before the High Court the
main stand taken was that PW8 had undergone eye operation about two years prior to
the date of occurrence and in dark night there was no scope for identification. The High
Court did not accept the stand and held that identification was possible, particularly,
when the accused was the grandson of the witness. The appeal was dismissed by the
impugned judgment.

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all other
accused persons have been acquitted except the appellant. The Trial Court and the
High Court should not have accepted the statement of Surja Ram (PW8) that he
identified the accused from his voice in a dark night which was probable. Learned
counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.

The first point relates to the acquittal of the co-accused and its effect on prosecution
version. Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court have noted the fact that

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

13

the only person named was PW8 who was the grand son of the present appellant. He
did not identify the co-accused person i.e. the other assailants. In the instant
proceedings PW8 had mentioned about 5-6 persons, but only identified by appellant as
one of the assailants. PW8 disclosed before the Court that the deceased went for taking
a bath in the canal and after 10- 15 minutes a jeep came on the bank of the canal. He
did not see the other occupants of the jeep and only identified the appellant who raised
the lalkara to teach lesson to the deceased for cultivating the land of his grandfather.
The accused persons came with the respected weapons and started inflicting injuries on
the person of the deceased. PW8 had categorically stated that he did not recognize other
assailants, and though he knew other assailants, he did not know their names and,
therefore, had not given their names. He had categorically also stated that from the
voice of accused who raised the lalkara he recognized the assailant as his grandson.
The stand of the appellant that in dark night recognition would not have been possible
from voice is clearly untenable. In a dark night ocular identification may be difficult in
some cases but if a person is acquainted and closely related to another, from the manner
of speech, gait and voice identification is possible.

“The court has cited this case to refer the judgement which says deterrence should be
the prime consideration while considering the quantum of sentence for rash and
negligent driving”

2) Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka6

“Appellant was the driver of a bus bearing registration. He was driving the said bus on
Bangalore-Hindupur road. On tenth january at about 2 p.m. when the bus was passing
through a village commonly known as Kamalapura, it dashed against a child by name
Shantha, as a result whereof she died. Shantha was about 7 years old at that time. A
criminal prosecution under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was
initiated against him. He was found guilty of the said offences. He was sentenced to

6
2008 (5) SCC

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

14

one year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for commission of the
offence punishable under Section 304A and simple imprisonment for one month and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal
Code. The appeal preferred thereagainst by him was dismissed. The High Court,
however, by reason of the impugned judgment modified the sentence directing:”7

"The order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 304-
An IPC is modified. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount of
Rs.5000/- if deposited by the revision petitioner-accused, a sum of Rs.4000/-
shall be paid to P.W. 6 Gowramma and remaining Rs.1000/- shall be credited
to the State exchequer."
The bench’s take this case to show the similarity of facts in both the cases.

JUDGEMENT

 In Personam [CONCRETE JUDGEMENT]

The judgement of the High Court was set aside and overruled by the Supreme Court
i.e.Both the two accused were convicted and no leniency was shown .

 In Rem [RATIO DECIDENDI]

“In the light of the above principles, we express our inability to accept the reasoning
of the High Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already
undergone, that is, 15 days. Merely because the fine amount has been enhanced to
Rs. 25,000/- each, is also not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence,
particularly, in a case where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the
drivers of the bus and the truck. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of
the High Court and impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months

7
Id.

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

15

with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps
for surrender of the accused in both the appeals to serve the remaining period of
sentence. The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned above.”8

According to my thinking, the ratio defines a criterion that the court will not
be lenient on any part even if he/she is already convicted.

8
¶9, Id.

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

16

REASONING

“In the light of the above principles, we express our inability to accept the reasoning of the
High Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, that
is, 15 days. Merely because the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- each, is also
not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, in a case where five
persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and impose a sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The trial Court is
directed to take appropriate steps for surrender of the accused in both the appeals to serve
the remaining period of sentence. The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned above”9
Thus, according to the court there should not be any leniency shown as they have cause the
death of 5 person by their negligent act.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The case is primarily focused in the dispute whether the court should show leniency toward
the convict who had already been trailed in past and again he by his negligent act had
caused the death of 5 people. Even in the present case due to the negligent act of truck
driver and bus driver the 5 people lost their life, as on the first round of trail they were
found guilty and the and two years’ imprisonment was announced with fine under section
304A,337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving of automobile and
that cause the life of 5 innocents travelling in the bus. By the order of Judicial Magistrate
both the accused persons were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 year each
for the offence under Section 304A and fine was imposed of rupees 200 and also imposed
the rigorous imprisonment fot two and six montheach for the offence that is punishable
under Section 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code. Then the accused herein fied the Criminal
Revision Petition being quanater of offence and quantum of sentence before High Court

9
¶9, Id.

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

17

,where in the High Court while confining to the confining to the question of quantum of
sentence only, reduced the sentence of the accused persons to the period already undergone
(15 days) and in addition thereto, enhanced the fine to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each.”10
Thereafter Against the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab has filed the appeals
before Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions. Where the Supreme Court setting
aside the high court decision said [“Lenient view not permissible-Reasoning of High Court
in reducing sentence to period of imprisonment of 15 days cannot be accepted, merely
because fine enhanced to R 25,000 each. Also not sufficient to drastically reduce sentence,
Particularly five persons died due to negligent act of both drivers of bus and truck-
Impugned order of High Court set aside11, Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six
months with fine of R 5,000 each imposed.
Finally, the court had very simply applies the law to the fact and had come to the decision
except the High court.
The researcher totally connects with the decision and reasoning given by the SC that the
person driving motor vehicle should not take chance of thinking that even he is convicted
he would be dealt with leniently by the court. Supreme Court completely fulfilled the
judgement and even set the bench mark that none of the similar case or any other the court
be never be linent and also court will rigorously punish the convicts.

10
State of Punjab vs Balwinder Singh and Ors. 2012ACJ563 (cited from the Judgements)
11
Id.

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL