Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2000 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.8.2009 Madan Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 154 dated 12.6.1995 registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Hodal, District Faridabad, on the allegation that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, one person namely Mangli expired and the complainant Tara Chand sustained injuries. Briefly, the facts are that FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Tara Chand with the allegations that on 12.6.1995, he was going on scooter bearing registration no. DL-28K/5760 towards Deeg along with Mangli who was an employee on his shop. When they reached near Mundkati Choki, a truck bearing registration number HR-12-5427, which was being driven rashly and negligently came from the side of Palwal and hit the scooter. Due to this impact, both riders of the scooter fell down alongwith the vehicle. The front wheel of the truck crossed over Mangli resulting into his death. The complainant also sustained injuries in the accident. The offending vehicle and the scooter were taken into possession by the police. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented. He was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of eye witnesses, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2000 (2) petitioner were proved beyond doubt and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo following sentence:- Under Section Sentence of imprisonment Fine In default 279 IPC 3 months rigorous imprisonment Rs. 500/- 3 months 304-A IPC 1 year rigorous imprisonment Rs. 1,000/- 337 IPC 6 months rigorous imprisonment Rs. 500/- In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the persons who were the eye witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial for about fourteen years and further that he has three children to support and being the sole bread-earner of the family should be extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of 4½ months. He further submitted that the claimants have already been awarded compensation in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paul George vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 478, and judgments of this court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, and sole bread-earner of the family are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2000 (3) Faridabad. The sentence of fine is converted into compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, which shall be deposited in the trial court within three months on receipt of copy of the order to be disbursed to the family of the deceased. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 5.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge