Crl. Rev. No. 46 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 46 of 2003 Date of decision : 27.09.2011 Baldev Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of instant revision petition wherein the conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court under Section 279, 304-A, 337, 338 IPC has been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. According to the allegations, the petitioner who was driving the bus belonging to M/s. Lali Bus Services drove the bus on to the deceased an old lady who was 65 years of age and was standing by the road side on the Kacha portion and the incident is said to have taken place on 26.1.1999 in which apart from the death of Harnam Kaur a minor girl of about 6 years also received serious injuries which were described by the Doctors during the course of testimony as dangerous to life. The petitioner fled with the bus after causing the accident. Crl. Rev. No. 46 of 2003 2 Both the Courts concluded that the petitioner was guilty of commission of the offences alleged against him and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the identity of the petitioner has not been established, therefore, he deserves to be acquitted. As against this learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab has contended that orders of both the Courts below are perfectly legal and justified. I have considered the plea which has been raised before this Court which seems to be baseless. There is material on record to show the time table of the buses which has been duly proved and during the course it was established that the bus was plied on the said route at the relevant time. The petitioner has given his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. merely denying the allegations made against him. He has put out the defence that he was not driver of the bus. He has also failed to produce evidence to show that he was not the employee of M/s Lali Bus Services, whose bus had caused the accident. The minor girl who was injured in the incident had also testified against the petitioner. She had also established that the bus was driven rashly and negligently. The medical evidence showed that she had received injuries on her stomach after having been run over by bus and the site plan shows that the place of occurrence where the old lady and the girl were standing is about 3 karams from the place of occurrence. The photograph also showed that the Crl. Rev. No. 46 of 2003 3 deceased and the injured were on their extreme left on the kacha portion of the road. All these facts suggest complete negligence on part of the petitioner who did not bother about bystanders on the side of the road and negligently rammed his bus into them. It is a case where the facts speak clearly for themselves. Once the negligence is established then the second issue regarding identity has to be examined. As it is observed earlier there is no material on record which could offset the positive evidence in the shape of testimony of the injured girl and also the time table which has come on record indicating that the bus which had caused accident was scheduled to ply on this route. The defence of the petitioner is not qualified by any plea and is a denial simpliciter which leads to a strong inference that the petitioner had no defence to plead in the wake of the allegation of the prosecution story. There is no merit in the revision petition, hence, is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that occurrence is of year 1999 and the petitioner has faced the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 12 years. On due consideration of the matter and noticing the fact that the petitioner was a young man at the time when occurrence took place and after 12 years, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail. I am of he opinion that ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone and the fine component enhanced in lieu thereof. Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of with a Crl. Rev. No. 46 of 2003 4 direction that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the extent already undergone by him, but he shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased and Rs. 50,000/- to the injured namely Manjot Kaur. The said amount shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of six months from today, for onward disbursement to the claimants specified above after due notice to them. The failure to do so would result in revival of the sentence. (MAHESH GROVER) 27.09.2011 JUDGE reena