IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 782 of 1997 Date of Decision : January 08, 2010 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate Mr.Manmohan Sikka, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu for the offences under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC. Vide judgment dated 5.10.1995 and order dated 6.10.1995, he was convicted under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 427 IPC for which he also stood convicted, he was sentenced to Crl. Revision No. 782 of 1997 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 1.8.1997 but with reduction of sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial Court under Section 304-A IPC to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The other sentences were maintained. It was also directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed the present revision before this Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The revision was admitted on 26.8.1997 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate surety/security bonds. The prosecution had been successful in establishing the guilt of the petitioner in driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1L/4502 at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the accident took place in which Pawan Kumar lost his life. After the accident, the petitioner tried to escape through the fields but he had hardly covered a Crl. Revision No. 782 of 1997 -3- distance of about 70 paces from the place of occurrence when the vehicle got stuck. The petitioner then came out of the offending vehicle and ran away. The identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle stood amply proved from the testimonies of PW1 Zile Singh, PW2 Lachman, PW4 Rajinder and PW5 Mahabir Parsad, who all had seen the accused at the time of the accident. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference in the matter of conviction of the petitioner. His conviction for the offences under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC is, therefore, maintained. While filing the present revision, the petitioner had placed on record Cardiac Catheterization Report issued by Bombay Hospital, Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, wherein it stood mentioned that he was suffering from severe non-calcific mitral stenosis and, therefore, balloon mitral valvotomy was performed by Dr. K.H. Ayyer and Dr. E.D. Borges, Cardiologists on 16/23.10.1996. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the accident in question had taken place on 8.6.1991. At that time, the petitioner was in his early twenties. The petitioner is a first offender and only earning member of his family. He had also remained behind the bars for a period of one month after the dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view the ill-health of the petitioner and also the fact that he had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution Crl. Revision No. 782 of 1997 -4- for the last more than 18 years, the petitioner be granted the concession of probation, instead of sending him behind the bars once again to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, one innocent life was lost. Moreover, cases of vehicular accidents are on the increase and, therefore, in order to discourage rash and negligent driving on the part of the persons at the steering wheel of the vehicles, a strict view be taken by requiring the petitioner to serve the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon them, instead of granting him the benefit of probation. It is a fact that the person, who sit behind the steering wheel, are least bothered about the driving rules. They do not care for other people who also use the roads on high-ways alongwith them. For that reason, this Court would hesitate to extend any benefit to the petitioner. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been a heart patient and in October 1996, he had to undergo balloon mitral valvotomy, besides the fact that he has already undergone a period of about one month's imprisonment, whereas he is required to undergo maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment Crl. Revision No. 782 of 1997 -5- for one year, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be amply met in case the petitioner is granted the benefit of probation. Resultantly, the remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside and, instead, he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing adequate bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. The fine, if already recovered from the petitioner, shall be treated as compensation, to be paid as such to the legal heirs of deceased Pawan Kumar. (T.P.S.MANN) January 08, 2010 JUDGE satish