Crl.Revision No.1155 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1155 of 2000 Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Makhan Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitione Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Makhan Singh filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 18.9.2000 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide this judgment appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.9.1999 passed by JMIC, Ferozepur, was dismissed. As per the judgment/order dated 21.9.1999, the petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. As per story, on 23.3.1997, complainant Ajit Pal Singh lodged a report to the police to the effect that young boys of the village used to play kabaddi in the Government Primary School of the village. He was going back from the school along with his son Gurmit Singh after watching the kabaddi game at about 6.45 PM. Gurmit Singh was coming out of the gate of the school and was ahead of the complainant, and when he tried to cross the phirni road, then a tractor mark Ford 3600 came from the side of Village Crl.Revision No.1155 of 2000 2 Sulhani. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Makhan Singh. Without blowing the horn, the tractor was struck against Gurmit Singh. Gurmit Singh was run over by the tractor. Death of Gurmit Singh was on the spot. After the accident, Makhan Singh had fled away from the spot. Matter was reported to the police. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that occurrence had taken place in the month of March, 1997. Petitioner was 55 years’ old at the time of occurrence. He is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. The impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Petitioner is ready to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that a lenient view may be taken qua sentence. Out of one year, the petitioner has already undergone three months and five days as on 19.9.2009. Learned State counsel produced custody certificate of the petitioner. Same is taken on record. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt occurrence was in the month of March, 1997, and at that time, the petitioner was 55 years’ old. No objection if a lenient view is taken provided compensation is paid to the heirs of the deceased. Statements of eye witnesses show that the occurrence was due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. As per doctor, injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature suffered in road side accident. Evidence led by the prosecution clearly shows that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the petitioner. Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court rightly scrutinized the evidence on file and came to Crl.Revision No.1155 of 2000 3 the conclusion that petitioner had committed offence under Section 304-A IPC. Minor discrepancies were pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner and ultimately request of learned counsel for the petitioner was to take a lenient view qua sentence. Revisional Court is not to re-evaluate the evidence on the file. Judgment is to be set aside if the same is against law and is perverse. Occurrence is dated 23.3.1997. At that time, the petitioner was 55 years’ old. Petitioner is the first offender and is a poor man. He has already undergone three months and five days as on 19.9.2009, out of one year. Petitioner has faced agony of protracted trial for the last about twelve years. Ends of justice would be fully met if a lenient view is taken. In the light of above discussion, instead of directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, he is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (three months and five days as on 19.9.2009) and to deposit Rs.50,000/- as compensation within two months from today. Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner is to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case of non- deposit of Rs.50,000/- within two months before the trial Court, which is to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased, then the revision would stand dismissed automatically and in that case, the petitioner is to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. With the aforesaid modification qua sentence, the revision being without merit is dismissed. 21.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE