Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 (O &M) Date of decision: 04.08.2009 Kabal Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner is 70 years of age. He had been allowed interim bail for one month to enable him to get treatment from some specialized institution as he is suffering from hypertension and chronic renal failure, as per medical certificates brought on record. Another application for further interim bail has been moved on his behalf. Today, while taking up the miscellaneous application for grant of interim bail, arguments have also been heard in the revision petition. Petitioner Kabal Singh had been convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC vide judgment dated 30-11-2004. He was sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Section 279 IPC, RI for three months under Section 337 IPC and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer further imprisonment for three months. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his his conviction/sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 2 judgment dated 20-3-2009 dismissed the same with some modification to the extent that conviction under Section 337 IPC was set aside. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the Courts below, he has preferred the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 19-2-2000, Sukhbir Kaur complainant along with her husband Joginder Singh was going on their moped (Hero Majestic) bearing registration No. PB-05C-1347 while Tej Pal Kaur & Baljit Kaur, her nieces were going on their Vespa scooter bearing registration No. PB-05-8666. Meanwhile, an ambassador car bearing registration No. PUL-6, being driven in a rash & negligent manner with a high speed by Kabal Singh, accused/petitioner first struck against the Vespa scooter, as a result of which Tej Pal Kaur and Baljit Kaur fell down. Tej Pal Kaur received fractures and Baljit Kaur became unconscious. Thereafter the car struck against their moped, as a result of which complainant and her husband fell down. Her husband died at the spot, whereas she received some fractures. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. He examined four witnesses in his defence and placed on record Exhibits d1 & D2 as well as Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 3 photographs, marked 'A', 'B' & 'C' while taking the plea of alibi. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by him also stood dismissed with the modification that conviction under Section 337 IPC was set-aside. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC. So far as his conviction (recorded by the trial Court) under Section 337 IPC is concerned, in my view, the appellate Court has rightly set aside the same. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is an old man of 70 years, a patient of hypertension and chronic rental failure, he is the first offender, sole bread winner in the family and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for the several years. As per affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, dated 20-7-2009 the petitioner had undergone 3 months & 7 days by that time. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly old age and medical condition of the petitioner, sentence awarded to him under Section 304-A IPC by the Courts below is reduced to RI for six months. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand), to be disbursed to Sukhbir Kaur, Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 4 widow of Joginder Singh deceased as compensation. The petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount of fine, if deposited shall be disbursed to widow of the deceased. In case of failure to deposit the fine, the petitioner shall undergo the sentence, as awarded by the Courts below. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 04, 2009 'ask'