Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 Date of Decision:22.09.2009 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Balwinder Singh accused against the judgment dated 9.1.2006/ order of sentence dated 10.1.2006 rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for an identical period under Section 337 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section 338 of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 304-A of IPC with a further direction that all these sentences shall run concurrently. Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 -2- The facts in brief are that on the intervening night of 16/ 17.9.1997 while the complainant along with his relatives namely, Ajit and Shish Ram was travelling in Jeep bearing registration No. HR-14-7680 being driven by Jai Bhagwan and had reached in the proximity of Village Chanduwas, meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-U-5544 being driven by the accused Balwinder rashly or negligently came from the opposite direction. Jai Bhagwan turned the jeep towards left side, but despite that afore-mentioned truck struck against the jeep, with the result, the occupants of the jeep sustained multiple injuries. However, Jai Bhagwan succumbed to injuries. The case was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Banwari Lal PW1, SI Prem Narayan PW2, Dr. Vinod Kumar PW3, Dr. Ashok Kumar PW4, Rajesh PW5, Randhir Singh PW6, Shish Ram PW7, Ajit Singh PW8, Dr. V.S. Yadav PW9, Shyam Kishore PW10, Puran Chand PW11, Sumer Singh PW12. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 19.12.2005. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 -3- outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari as noticed earlier. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW6 Randhir Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that he was sitting on the rear seat of the jeep and that there was no light near the place of accident and that the statement was made by him in the police station on the next day and that all the injured and the deceased are inter-related. These circumstances are symptomatic of the fact that he being related to the injured was to make a statement in favour of the prosecution. That being so, his statement ought to be excluded from consideration being an interested witness. He further puts that as per mechanical report, jeep's left chasis was hit and damaged, meaning thereby, jeep driver is at fault, otherwise right side of the jeep would have been damaged, if the petitioner had been at fault. As against this, the learned State Counsel maintained that on evaluating the entire prosecution evidence, it transpires that the charge is fully established against the petitioner. I have well considered the rival contentions. A meticulous perusal of the evidence tendered by the material witnesses, namely, PW6 Randhir Singh, PW7 Shish Ram and PW8 Ajit Singh would reveal that they had witnessed the accident and during their cross-examination, their Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 -4- credibility in no manner could be impeached. In the face of their evidence, no contrary view can be taken to the findings returned by both the Courts below. Sequelly, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are jettisoned and the conviction is upheld. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this incidence is more than 11 years old. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1997. He has produced the affidavit of Randhir Singh complainant who has solemnly affirmed therein that under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the deceased Jai Bhagwan's legal heirs have received sufficient compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- and, therefore, the deponent being a complainant does not wish to prosecute aforesaid Balwinder Singh (referring to the petitioner) further and that in Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 (referring to the present petition), the Court may take a lenient view and Balwinder Singh may be released either on probation or acquitted. He further puts that in these premises, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. As per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 24 days of the actual sentence. In re: Lakhwinder Dass v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 825, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing the death of a person by rash and negligent driving. The incident being 17 years old, he was released on probation. In re: Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 795, the motor accident was caused by the accused due to rash Criminal Revision No.2009 of 2007 -5- and negligent driving of bus, for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A of IPC. The occurrence being 17 years old, he was released on probation of good conduct. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone. With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition stands dismissed. September 22, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No