Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2006 Date of Decision : 14.3.2011. Sidanthi ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated March 11th, 2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 15th, 2005 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahendergarh whereby petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/- SI for 15 days 304-A IPC RI for 2 years Rs.1000/- SI for 3 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On June 17th, 1997 Babu Lal-complainant (PW-2), his brother Sarjeet Kumar (deceased) and Surender Singh were walking from Nichi Bhandore Bus Stand to Mahendergarh. When they reached near Bus stand Jonawas, a truck bearing No. DL-1GA- 7163, being driven by the petitioner at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from front side and hit Sarjeet Kumar (deceased). The truck dragged him upto 3 feet. As a result, his right leg, hand and chest were crushed under the wheel and he died on the spot. The petitioner stopped the truck and after disclosing his identity, managed to escape leaving the truck on the spot. On the statement of Babu Lal (Exhibit PW-2/A), First Information Report Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2006 2 (Exhibit PW-6/A) was registered against the petitioner. Site plan (Exhibit PW-3/C) was prepared. Scene of occurrence was got photographed. Truck was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PW-3/D). The dead body was sent to the Civil Hospital, Mahendergarh for post-mortem examination. The petitioner was arrested on June 18th, 1997. 3. On completion of investigation, the petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 4. Prosecution in support of their case examined, Dr. Rakesh Sharma (PW-1), Babu Lal (PW-2), Om Parkash (PW-3), Harpal Singh (PW-4), Surender Singh (PW-4), Bhoop Singh (PW-5), Raj Singh (PW-6), Vishavjeet (PW-7) and Sidanthi (PW-8). 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their complicity with the offence in question and pleaded innocence. 6. Counsel heard on either side. 7. The eye witness account has been rendered by Babu Lal (PW-2) and Surender Singh (PW-4). Both of them have deposed about the occurrence as narrated above. They were cross- examined by counsel for the accused-petitioner but nothing material could be elicited from as could shake their evidence. They have categorically stated that on June 17th, 1997 they along with Sarjeet Kumar were going from Nichi Bhandore Bus Stand to Mahendergarh on foot. When they reached near Bus stand Jonawas, truck bearing No. DL-1GA-7163 being driven by the petitioner at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner came from front side and hit Sarjeet Kumar (deceased) and dragged him upto 3 feet. As a result, his right leg, hand and chest were crushed under the tire. The eye witnesses have not only given a description of the occurrence but they have also brought home the acts of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. To cap it all, they had no extraneous reasons to depose falsely nor their testimony could be shaken despite searching questions put in the cross-examination. Their evidence is Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2006 3 corroborated by the medical evidence rendered by Dr. Rakesh Sharma (PW-1) who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sarjeet Kumar and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries suffered in a vehicular accident. He also proved post-mortem examination report (PW-1/A). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner was not arrested on the spot so, he was not on the steering wheel. The argument is devoid of merit because immediately after the accident, the petitioner stopped his truck, came down and disclosed his identity to Surender Singh (PW-4) who identified him in the Court also. The petitioner himself is owner of the offending truck and during the pendency of trial, he took the same on superdari. Even Babu Lal (PW-2) deposed about the number of the truck also. All this shows that it was none else but the petitioner who was at the wheel at the relevant time. Had there been anybody else at the wheel at the time of accident, then the petitioner being owner of the truck must have the knowledge as to who was driving it at that time. The petitioner did not make any such revelations. Had he been falsely implicated in this case, he would have moved the higher authorities but he did not. 9. In view of this overwhelming evidence, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty. However, an argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to some reasonable period on the ground that the petitioner has already undergone the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of about 14 years. He is the only bread winner of his family. He has not indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. 10. Taking all these factors into consideration, sentence of the petitioner is reduced from 2 years to 1 year under Section 304-A IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 279 IPC and sentence of fine shall remain intact. Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2006 4 11. Except for this modification in the quantum of sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. 12. The revisionist is on bail. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Learned trial Magistrate is directed to comply with this order under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 14.3.2011. SN