Crl. Revision No. 1947 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1947 of 2005 Date of decision: April 6, 2011 Ramjan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. RD Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. JS Rattu, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner/accused, Ramjan, was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC by JMIC, Nuh, vide judgment dated 8.8.2002 and vide order dated 9.8.2002 was sentenced as under:- Section Sentence 304-A IPC 337 IPC (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ` 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; (ii) to pay fine of ` 500/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days; Against that conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 22.9.2005. Now he has preferred the present revision against that conviction and sentence. Crl. Revision No. 1947 of 2005 2 Briefly stated, the prosecution case is, that on 18.8.1996, Isha, complainant (PW-3), Sharif and Israil were going from Bhiwari towards Tauru on a motor-cycle, bearing registration No. DLISB-2515, which was being driven by Israil. At that time, Sharif was carrying his son Sokeen, aged about 3-4 years, in his lap. When they crossed Sunari crossing, the accused came driving tractor make Eicher negligently and rashly and dashed in their motor-cycle, as a result of which all of them received injuries. They were removed to the hospital at Tauru and were admitted at that place. They were medically examined by the doctor who sent his ruqa to the police station. On the receipt of that ruqa, Lal Singh, ASI (PW-6), came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW3/A and sent the same to the Police Station and on the basis thereof, FIR was record. Thereafter, the ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. He called Pawan Kumar, Photographer (PW-8) to the spot, who took the photographs. Sokeen succumbed to his injuries and the post mortem examination was performed on his body. Ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body and the same were stated to be the cause of his death. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and the tractor was taken into possession, which was got mechanically tested from Ram Dhan, Mechanic (PW-1) and was found to be in mechanical order. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, the prosecution examined Ramdhan (PW-1), Janki Parshad (PW-2), Isha (PW- Crl. Revision No. 1947 of 2005 3 3), Yusuf (PW-4), Israil (PW-5), Lal Singh ASI (PW-6), Nawab (PW-7), Pawan Kumar, Photographer (PW-8) and Dr. Pawan Singh (PW-9). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his false implication. He was called upon to enter on his defence and he produced Nooruddin (DW-1) in his defence evidence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the accused did not assail the finding of conviction of the accused recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. However, he challenged the order of sentence. He submitted that a compromise was entered into between the complainant party and the accused in the trial court and the accused is not a previous convict. He prayed that he be granted the benefit of probation. The offences under Sections 279 and 304 IPC are not compoundable. These are the offences against the public and not against private individual. The said compromise was duly considered by the trial court, while passing the order of sentence. The sentence of one year of imprisonment was imposed upon the accused under Section 304-A IPC. Merely on the ground that such compromise was entered into between the parties and that the accused is not a previous convict, he cannot be released on probation. Before releasing the accused on probation, the Court is to see the nature of offence and the circumstances in which the same was committed. The accused by his rash and negligent driving not only caused Crl. Revision No. 1947 of 2005 4 the death of an innocent child but also caused injuries to three other persons. The motor vehicle accidents are on increase in these days and to put a check on the same the courts are to see that the persons convicted for such like offences must be dealt with deterrently. Giving benefit of probation in such like cases will be counter-productive. When a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving were harsh, no compassion can be shown to the accused. There is no ground for extending the benefit of probation to the accused. The revision is dismissed accordingly. This order be certified to the trial court for taking appropriate action. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. April 6, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE