Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2003 Date of Decision: 5.3.2010 Jasmer Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Jasmer Singh son of Ram Chander, who was named as accused in case FIR No. 120 dated 4.12.2004 registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The FIR, in the present case, was registered on the statement made by Anand Kishore Pasricha. It was stated that on 3.12.1994, the complainant along with his elder brother Dr.Kamal Kishore Pasricha and nephew Dr. Saurav Pasricha, had proceeded towards Karnal to attend shagun ceremony. The complainant and his nephew Dr. Saurav Pasricha were travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-08- K-0440, whereas his elder brother Dr. Kamal Kishore Pasricha was Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2003 2 travelling in another Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-08-D-0082. A Maruti car, in which Dr. Kamal Kishore Pasricha was travelling, was being driven by Major Singh and it was going ahead of the car of the complainant. When they reached near Bus Stand Shambhu at about 3.00 P.M., a Contessa car bearing registration No. HR-02-B-9002 came at a very high speed. It was driven by the present petitioner. Due to rash and negligent driving, the Contessa car had hit Maruti car, driven by Dr. Saurav Pasricha, in which he had received serious injuries. Dr. Saurav Pasricha was taken to Civil Hospital, Rajpura, wherefrom he was referred to the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, but on the way he passed away. The petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court had upheld the findings of the trial Court and maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2003 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, both the Courts below have relied upon the testimony of PW.2 Dr. Kamal Kishore Pasricha and PW.3 Anand Kishore Pasricha and held them to be the trustworthy witnesses. Learned counsel has further submitted that since both the Courts below have held the petitioner guilty, he has nothing in his arsenal, except to assail the testimony of PW.2 Dr. Kamal Kishore Pasricha and PW.3 Anand Kishore Pasricha by pointing out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements. However, learned counsel has submitted that in these circumstances, he will not assail the conviction of petitioner but shall pray to this Court that taking into consideration the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1994, the petitioner be not sent behind the bars, at this stage. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such other offence, before or after the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased. Learned counsel has contended that at the time of accident petitioner was aged about 33 years and now is aged about 49 years and is a sole bread earner of his family. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has already suffered a mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than 15 years. It is further urged that the petitioner has undergone about 57 days of actual sentence, out of the sentence of one year awarded to him. Taking into consideration the above said submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars, at this stage, may not serve any Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2003 4 useful purpose, however, if a compensation is awarded to the family of the deceased, it may provide some solace. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 5, 2010 “DK”