CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 24, 2009. Parties Name Mahesh Kumar ...PETITIONER VERSUS Union Territory Chandigarh ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: It was allegation against the petitioner that he by driving a car bearing No. CHE 4983, on April 11, 1991, in a rash and negligent manner, caused death of Chaman Lal on the above said date. Vide judgment and order dated September 18, 1999, the petitioner was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- with a default clause for offence u/S 279 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default clause for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed on January 31, 2002. Hence this revision petition. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -2- Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, reads thus: “2. Stated briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.4.1991, the police party headed by SI Ishwar Singh was on patrolling duty near Police Post Sector 17, Chandigarh, on Govt. Motor cycle No. CHP 9678. After conducting the checking of wine shop, petrol pump etc., the said police party was proceeding towards bus stand from the side of dividing road of Sector 22-A and 22-B, Chandigarh. At about 12.00 noon when the police party reached near Gurdial Singh Petrol Pump Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, one Hindu gentleman was seen going on cycle at a distance of about 20 -25 yards. When the said Hindu gentleman reached near the chowk, one Fiat car bearing No. CHE 4983 came from the side of Sector 22, Chandigarh link road and it dashed against the cyclist and also against the pillar on the road side. The said Fiat car was being driven by the accused in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. As a result of the accident, the cyclist was entangled in the bumper of the car and was released after hitting against the pillar. The people had gathered at the spot and injured was removed to the PGI in a three wheeler. PW Constable Surinder Singh was left at the spot by SI Ishwar Singh.” It has come on record that in PGI, injured Chaman Lal died on that very date. Dead body was identified by Ramesh Mehta (PW4) on April CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -3- 12, 1991. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation, put in final report in the Court for trial. On October 21, 1991, charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material, existing on record, was put to him. He denied the same, claimed innocence and false implication. He, however, led no evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned in earlier part of this order. He also failed in appeal. Counsel for the petitioner tried to assail judgment, passed by the Court below, by referring to some minor contradictions here and there in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in Court. After going through the paper book and other documents, this Court is convinced that the case against the petitioner was proved on record by the prosecution. It is apparent from the record that the FIR was recorded at the instance of SI Ishwar Singh (PW3). The accident was seen by the above said witness along with other police officials. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to mention any reason as to why the police officials would name the petitioner if he was not the real culprit. Merely because , two of the witnesses have resiled from their statements, no benefit can be extended in favour of the petitioner. Case of the prosecution was fully proved by testimony of other witnesses. On merits, counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. Otherwise also, in view of judgment in Raj CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -4- Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal ) 611, it is not possible for this Court to interfere on merits, except in exceptional circumstances where glaring mistake might have been committed by the Courts below. Nothing of the sort has been indicated in this case. Faced with the situation, Shri Narinder Singh, counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is a first offender. He was married and having three minor children. By stating that he is the only bread winner of the family, he argued that if he is sent behind the bars now, his entire family will suffer. By stating as above, counsel prayed that the petitioner be released on probation. None has put in appearance on behalf of Union Territory Chandigarh. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose of Criminal Law justice system is not only to bring peace , discipline and harmony in the Society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, especially a fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1991, petitioner continued to face agony of trial, thereafter appeal and this revision petition, which is pending since the year 2002, this Court is of the opinion that he deserves lenient treatment. He has grown up family members and if sent in jail at this stage, it is likely to prove counter productive. He is a first offender. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7, observed as under:- “Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -5- offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repeat for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused. Its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society: weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.” Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CAR 280(SC) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -6- and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5 (SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of the aforesaid judgments, conviction is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. It was brought to our notice that heirs of the deceased were granted a handsum amount, by way of compensation, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. However, keeping in view ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 372, and to settle equity between the parties, fine imposed is enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine with the trial Court within three months from today and on deposit so being made, trial Court will issue a notice to the legal heirs of the deceased Chaman Lal and disburse this amount to them forthwith. In case amount is not deposited, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner shall execute bail bond and undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime of the like nature during the period of six months. Requisite bail bonds and undertaking be furnished within three months. With above said modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. February 24, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 279 OF 2002 -7-