Crl. Rev. No.1561 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1561 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.12.2009 Satpal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 5th November, 1996, after getting information of the accident, the police party reached at the spot, where Sukhdev Singh complainant got his statement recorded to the police to the effect that on that date, he alongwith his family and relatives was going to Mata Vaishno Devi to fulfill their Sukhna in their new Canter 409. At about 8.45 A.M., when they reached just ahead of Dera Baba Khushi Dass, Police Station Chabhal, District Tarn Taran, a bus bearing No. PB-12A-9123, being driven by its driver Satpal i.e. petitioner herein, came at a very high speed in a very negligent manner and struck their canter, as a result of which body of the canter was broken and the persons travelling therein suffered injuries. His mother Raj Rani, his wife Sunita and maternal aunt Charanjit Kaur had expired in the said accident, whereas his father Harbhajan Lal, Sisters Lalita Rani and Shanti Kumari, his children and Crl. Rev. No.1561 of 2009 2 driver Joginder Singh sustained injuries. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused/petitioner was presented in the trial court. Finding a prima facie case under Sections 304-A, 427, 279 IPC, charge against the accused was framed accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The accused, however, did not produce any witness in his defence. The learned trial court after appraising the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th November, 2005. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed the appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Tarn Taran on 28th April, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that in view of the findings returned by the trial court, he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and will confine his arguments regarding reduction in sentence only. He stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. It has been further submitted that the Crl. Rev. No.1561 of 2009 3 petitioner is a retired person and having ill health. Therefore, in view of the protracted trial, he prays that his sentence be reduced. Learned counsel for the State submits that in case the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, he shall have no objection to reduction of sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Taking into account totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is stated to be a retired person and keeping ill-health, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him but sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) December 24, 2009 JUDGE 'rajpal'