Criminal Revision No. 362 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 362 of 1997 Date of Decision: 4.3.2009 Partap Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Partap Singh, petitioner, was nominated as accused in case FIR No. 38 dated 2.2.1988 registered at Police Station Sadar Kaithal, under Sections 279, 337, 338, & 304-A IPC. The FIR was lodged on basis of statement Ex.PA made by Om Parkash, complainant, before Dalip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector on 2.2.1988 at 7.00 A.M. It has been stated by Om Parkash that he along with Raghbir Singh, Dalip Singh, Imrat and his brother Balbir Singh were travelling in the four-wheeler along with sons of his cousin Baru Ram, Bhagatu and Mai Chand. The driver of the four-wheeler was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. A request was made by Baru Ram, Bhagatu and Mai Chand who sat on the wooden batons loaded in the the rear of the four-wheeler. Passengers requested that vehicle should not be driven at a high speed. Hue and cry was raised by Dalip Criminal Revision No. 362 of 1997 2 Singh, brother of the complainant. It is stated that after they had travelled at a distance of 2 Kms, due to high speed, the driver of the four-wheeler could not control the vehicle and the vehicle hit, kikkar and eucalyptus trees. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Trial Court examined witnesses Om Parkash as PW.1, Raghbir Singh as PW.2, Imrat as PW.3, Babu Ram as PW.4, Dalip Singh as PW.5 who stated that in the occurrence Dalmir Singh son of Nagina had died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Trial Court found prosecution version to be probable, natural and convincing. The Court below held that in the occurrence not only one person had died but five/six persons had also received injuries. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year & six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Besides this, petitioner was also convicted under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC and was also sentenced under these provisions. Petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. However, sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC was reduced to one year. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is conscious of the fact that in the present case, five/six persons were injured and they had appeared as witnesses. The findings of the two Courts below on the facts of the case are based upon appreciation of evidence. Counsel has further submitted that he is aware of the limitations of the revisional Court as no re-appraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence can be Criminal Revision No. 362 of 1997 3 undertaken by this Court. No patent illegality or irregularity has been pointed out. Counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, has submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1988 and the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for 21 years. He further stated that the petitioner has already undergone three months of his actual sentence. Counsel further submits that family of the deceased can be compensated. I have considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. It was also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in the last 21 years, petitioner has committed no offence. To send the petitioner behind the bars after 21 years may not be justifiable. Protracted trial may be construed as mitigating circumstance. At the same time, family of the deceased is required to be compensated. Some monetary help to the family of the deceased can be provided. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the family of the deceased. Fine be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of order. In case, the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 4, 2009 “DK”