Criminal Revision No. 2103 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2103 of 2006 Date of Decision: 6.12.2011 Kulwant Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Petitioner Kulwant Singh was named as an accused in case FIR No. 134 dated 6.9.1989, registered at Police Station City, Phagwara, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. As per the prosecution case, on 5.9.1989 at about 10.30 A.M., the petitioner had caused death of Jatinder Kumar, a child, by rashly and negligently driving his scooter bearing registration No. PAQ-766 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, vide impugned judgment dated 29.5.2001 held the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 304-A IPC and vide a separate order of even date Criminal Revision No. 2103 of 2006 2 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 200, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner by the trial Court and had dismissed his appeal. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 20.11.2006, had suspended the sentence, awarded upon the petitioner, subject to deposit of ` 25,000 as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of Jatinder Kumar, deceased, in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara. On 13.3.2007, it was noticed by another Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, that in compliance with the order dated 20.11.2006, the petitioner had deposited a sum of ` 25,000. The prosecution case, briefly emerged against the petitioner in statement Ex.PW.5/A made by PW.5 Keshwar Singh son of Sat Narain Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. In his statement, Keshwar Singh stated that he was employed as a Labourer in J.C.T. Mills, Phagwara and he has got three daughters and a son namely Jatinder Kumar, aged about six years. On 5.9.1989 at about 10.30 A.M., he had taken his son Jatinder Kumar to the ESI Hospital for getting medicine due to pain in the stomach. After taking medicine, they were returning home via J.C.T.-G.T. Road. When, near the main gate of J.C.T. Mills, he along with his son was coming on foot, then one person, whose name was lateron learnt as Kulwant Singh son of Mohan Singh caste Jat, resident of village Virk, Police Station Goraya, District Criminal Revision No. 2103 of 2006 3 Jalandhar, came on a Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. PAQ-766 at a very high speed in a rash manner and without blowing any horn. The scooter hit Jatinder Kumar, due to which he fell on the ground and sustained injuries. Thereafter, with the help of Natha Singh son of Nihal Singh, who had witnessed the occurrence, the complainant brought Jatinder Kumar to Civil Hospital, Phagwara, where he was being looked after by his wife. A grievance was made that by driving the scooter at a very high speed in a rash manner without blowing any horn, the petitioner had caused accident, therefore, legal action be taken against him. On the statement, so made on 6.9.1989 at Civil Hospital, Phagwara, at about 2.00 P.M., the case was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On 7.9.1989 at about 5.00 P.M. Jatinder Kumar had expired and offence under Section 304-A IPC was added. The prosecution examined six witnesses. PW.5 Keshwar Singh, complainant and PW.6 Natha Singh, eye witness, deposed against the petitioner. PW.1 Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the child. PW.2 Varinder Singh, Clerk from the office of the District Transport Officer, Jalandhar, proved ownership of the above scooter bearing registration No. PAQ-766 and stated that the same was registered in the name of Vijay Kumar son of Purshotam Lal. On 5.9.1989, PW.3 Dr.L.R. Badhan had declared Jatinder Kumar, injured, unfit to make statement. PW.3 Jagmohan Nanda is witness to the recovery of the offending scooter, registration certificate thereof and driving licence of the petitioner were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW.3/3. PW.4 Kuldip Singh, Photographer, had taken photographs of the spot as Ex.PW.4/1 to Ex.PW.4/3, Criminal Revision No. 2103 of 2006 4 negatives whereof are Ex.PW.4/4 to Ex.PW.4/6. Thereafter, statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. All the incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. The accused stated that Vijay Kumar, owner of the scooter, was driving the scooter and he was sitting on the rear seat. Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate, appearing for Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, at the outset, has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, as both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.5 Keshwar Singh and PW.6 Natha Singh. He has further submitted that he is conscious that the Revisional Court will not tread on the path of re- appreciation and do re-appraisal of the evidence. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, in alternative, has prayed that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1989 and a period of more than 21 years is going to elapse. The petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased in monetary terms. He has drawn my attention to the order dated 20.11.2006, in pursuance whereof, ` 25,000 was deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a sole bread earner of his family. At the time of occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 45 years and now he is more than 66 years old. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence. Criminal Revision No. 2103 of 2006 5 Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, his antecedents, sufferance of protracted trial and the fact that he is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased, in monetary terms, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the petitioner, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, is reduced to that of already undergone, subject to payment of ` 35,000 as a fine. However, the sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. The amount of ` 25,000, which has already been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, shall be adjusted towards the amount of fine. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased. In case amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the aforesaid modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the petitioner, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 6, 2011 “DK”