IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.740 of 2000 Date of Decision: 8.9.2009 Ram Chander. ....... Petitioner through Shri R.A.Sheoran, Advocate. Versus Jai Parkash and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri R.S.Sangwan, Advocate. Respondent no.2 through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 25.1.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge,Bhiwani (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which, on an appeal preferred by respondent no.1, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were modified to the extent that he was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, `the I.P.C.'), but his conviction under Section 279 of Crl.Revision No.740 of 2000 -2- .... the I.P.C. was maintained and in lieu of sentence of imprisonment for the said offence, he was released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount. Respondent no.1 was sent up to face trial in a case arising out of F.I.R.No. 401 dt. 12.1.1992 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Sadar Dadri, on the allegations that on 12.11.1992, he drove Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HNB- 2376 at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the death of one Dharambir. After conclusion of trial, respondent no.1 was found guilty of the offences alleged against him and he was accordingly convicted & sentenced as under:- 1. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.; and 2. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 of the I.P.C. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed an appeal which was disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. The reasoning adopted by the appellate Court for awarding acquittal to respondent no.1 for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. was that the Medical Officer, who had Crl.Revision No.740 of 2000 -3- .... conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was not examined at the trial and similarly, the investigating officer was also not produced. On the basis of this reasoning, the appellate Court concluded that the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. was not proved against respondent no.1. While dealing with the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C., it held that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.1 stood proved and, therefore, his conviction for this offence was upheld. The complainant is before this Court in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The facts and the evidence on record establish that respondent no.1 was driving the bus in question in a negligent manner. The death of the deceased is also not disputed. In this view of the matter, the appellate Court fell in error by segregating the two offences. The sequence of events as per the prosecution case goes to show the commission of two offences which could not have been segregated for the simple reason that if the accident had occurred on account of negligent driving of respondent no.1, his culpability in causing the death of the deceased by the said act should have been taken as established. The testimony of PW1-Jai Bhagwan, the complainant, PW2- Dharampal and PW4-Ajit Singh, Conductor of the bus in question, could not be shattered in the cross-examination. All these witnesses consistently deposed regarding the manner of the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. In the matters such as this, when the sequence of events cannot be segregated, the appellate Court obviously Crl.Revision No.740 of 2000 -4- .... erred in acquitting respondent no.1 for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., especially when the death was not disputed. There is evidence on record that the deceased died in the hospital within one hour of the accident and, therefore, the evidence could not have pointed out to any other factor leading to the death of the deceased considering the short interregnum in which he died after the accident. Having regard to these factors, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court has gone wrong in awarding acquittal to respondent no.1 for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has contended that since respondent no.1 was released on probation for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and the accident had taken place in the year 1992, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him in custody by upsetting the judgment of the appellate Court in so far as it relates to offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. He has further contended that at the point of time when the statement of respondent no.1 was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he was 40 years old andby now, he would be fairly advanced in age. I have considered this aspect of the matter and having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 1992 and respondent no.1 was only awarded conviction under Section 279 of the I.P.C. by the appellate Court in the year 2000 and released on probation, it would be extremely harsh to send him to jail at this point of time. However, keeping in view the fact that due to accident which he had caused, one life had been Crl.Revision No.740 of 2000 -5- .... snuffed out, while recording his conviction under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., I think that ends of justice would be squarely met in the given set of circumstances if the sentence is awarded in terms of fine rather than in terms of imprisonment. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- 1. Respondent no.1 is also convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., whereas his conviction under Section 279 of the I.P.C. as recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the appellate Court is maintained. 2. His release on probation for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. will remain intact, but for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., instead of awarding substantice sentence of imprisonment, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as fine which shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. 3. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by respondent no.1 before the trial Court within a period of three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 4. If the amount as stated above is paid by respondent no.1, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased, after due notice and verification. September 8,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge