IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev. No. 2182 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 27, 2009 Gurdev Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharath Sarup, AAG Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Gurdev Singh was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal vide judgment dated 19.3.2007. Vide order dated 20.3.2007, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Under Section 337 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated Crl.Rev. No.2182 of 2008 -2- 10.10.2008 Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “ Satpal (PW2) has been working as a driver on Jeep No.RRC-524 of Amar Singh son of Jai Kishan resident of village Pobala. On 29.8.1998, Satpal started from Dhand at about 10.45 a.m. for Kurukshetra. Sumeer and Purshotam were also travelling with him in the said Jeep. At about 11 a.m., when Satpal reached near the paddy field of Vinod Kumar son of Hari Dutt of village Pabnawa, one truck no. DL-IG-A/2161 came from the opposite direction i.e. Kurukshetra. The driver of that truck was driving it at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and he came on the wrong side and struck against his Jeep. The Jeep was dragged on the other side of the road. As a result of the accident, Satpal, Purshotam and Sumeer received injuries. Mohinder son of Khushi Ram removed all the three injured in his Jeep and got them admitted in L.N.J.P. Hospital Kurukshetra. Sumeer Chauhan died in the hospital. The doctor of LNJP Hospital sent a rukka to the police. On receipt of that rukka, one Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station Dhand along with the police officials reached the hospital. Purshotam was found unfit to make a statement. Satpal was fit to make a statement and he made a statement Ex.PC on the basis of which, a case was registered. The dead body of Sumeer was sent for post mortem examination. The Jeep No. RRC-524 along with one affidavit was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PF. The truck no. DLIG-A/2161 along Crl.Rev. No.2182 of 2008 -3- with its Registration Certificate and Driving Licence was also taken into possession from the scene of occurrence vide memo Ex.PG. Both the truck and the Jeep were got mechanically examined. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and other usual formalities, a challan was presented in the court.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. He has only challenged the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not a previous convict and was facing criminal proceedings since 1998. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sabina ) Judge January 27, 2009 arya