Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2004 Date of Decision: 18.2.2010 Manjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No. 234 dated 3.10.1999, registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was a driver of tractor bearing registration No. PB-07-F-1288. It is stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner on 3.10.1999 at 9.15 P.M., he caused death of Gurjinder Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh and also caused injuries to Pardeep Singh. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, on 27.3.2003 framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2004 2 statement made by Harbans Singh. Complainant Harbans Singh stated that on the Government College Road, Hoshiarpur, he was having a shop of carpenter. On 3.10.1999, he was travelling in his Maruti Car No. PB-07-G-0706 from Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur. At about 9.15 P.M. when he reached near village Ram Nagar Dheha, one Tata 407 bearing registration No. PB-07-D-6455 was going ahead at a distance of 600 yards on its own side. It was going to Hoshiarpur. At that time, one tractor bearing registration No. PB-07-F-2285, number was later corrected as PB-07-F-1288, came at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner. Charge was amended later and tractor No. PB-07-F- 1288 was noticed. The tractor was having a trolley which was loaded with sand. The tractor hit Tata 407. The complainant found that driver of Tata 407 Gurjinder Singh was lying unconscious and cleaner Pardeep Singh had received multiple injuries. He brought both the injured to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Gurjinder Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh died on the way and Pardeep Singh got admitted at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, The name of tractor's driver was Manjit Singh son of Surjit Singh. The driver of the tractor was known to the complainant earlier as well. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for offence under Sections 279 IPC. A similar sentence was awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 337 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, for offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. All the sentences Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2004 3 were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that injured Pardeep Singh PW.3 has deposed against the petitioner. His presence at the spot is stamped. Counsel further submitted that the two Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Pardeep Singh PW.3. It is further submitted that examination-in-chief of PW.4 Harbans Singh was recorded but his cross-examination could not be concluded as he died during the trial, therefore, his statement could not be taken into consideration. Counsel has further contended that he is conscious that revisional Court cannot tread on the path of re-appraisal and re- appreciation of the evidence of witness. It is submitted that the argument that the registration number of the tractor was wrongly noted by the complainant was also rejected by the two Courts below. Counsel further submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1999. The petitioner is in the corridors of the Court from the last 11 years, therefore, he has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is further urged that the petitioner has not committed any other offence, before or after the occurrence and he is an agriculturist who was having a tractor. It is further prayed that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased, therefore, he be not sent behind the bars at this stage after 11 years of incident as the same will not serve any useful purpose. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has already undergone 22 days Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2004 4 of his actual sentence. Taking the submissions, made by counsel for the petitioner, into consideration, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period 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, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 18, 2010 “DK”