Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 1997 Date of Decision: 30.4.2008. Jai Kishan …Appellants Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Petitioner Jai Kishan son of Lehri Singh was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and further sentenced one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 20.11.1997, however, sentence was reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC but the sentence awarded under Section 279 IPC was maintained. Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 1997 2 Case FIR No. 599 dated 19.10.1987 was registered at Police Station City Panipat under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the statement of Moti Ram. In the FIR, it was stated that he along with his wife Saroj Devi after meeting his daughter boarded the bus at 6.15 P.M. on 19.10.1987 for returning to his house at Smalkha. They were travelling in a bus No. HYM-7841. At 7.30 P.M. when the bus was to enter into the Panipat Bus Stand it took a turn towards G.T. Road. The bus waited near the In gate. It stopped. Passengers started alighting from the bus. The complainant got down from the front window of the bus and his wife who was after him was also in process of getting down when the driver of the bus moved the bus without any whistle from Conductor due to which his wife fell down and suffered injuries. Though he raised noise, the driver of the bus had not stopped the bus and his wife was run over by the rear tyre of the bus and due to which she died. He stated that driver of bus stopped the bus and came out of the bus and told his name as Jai Kishan son of Lehri Singh. In the Court, Ved Parkash appeared as PW.1. He stated that Saroj Devi was mother-in-law of his son and he attested the memo vide which the bus was taken into possession. PW.2 Ravinder Kumar is eye witness and has deposed as to how Saroj Devi suffered injuries. Complainant Moti Ram appeared as PW.3 and reiterated the version narrated in the FIR. PW.5 Kuldip Singh had taken the photographs of the spot. PW.6 Mahipal, Constable, PW.7 Om Parkash, Inspector, Haryana Roadways, PW.8 Chaman Lal, Inspector, Haryana Roadways, Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 1997 3 PW.9 Ram Phal, Constable, PW.10 Zile Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.11 Pawan Kumar, Sub Inspector and PW.12 Sher Singh, Mechanic appeared and supported the case. Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has stated that Saroj Devi was not vigilant enough while alighting from the bus. The bus was not parked and she was in hurry in alighting from the bus. The bus was entering into the bus stand. It was further contended that accident had taken place because deceased Saroj Devi was in hurry to alight at the outer gate of the bus stand. She ought to have waited till the bus was parked in the bus stand. Therefore, there is no rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, who is driver of the bus. I have read the evidence of the witnesses. No such basis was laid in the cross-examination to support the argument, which has been raised before me. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence of witnesses. Two Courts below have returned the findings of fact. The same cannot be set aside simply because learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the probability as to how occurrence could have taken place should be taken into consideration by this Court while deciding the present revision petition. At this stage, Mr. Thind has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1987. it is further stated that the petitioner has suffered protracted trial for more than 21 years. It is further stated that the Petitioner was not a previous convict. It has been further stated that in the last 21 years, petitioner has committed no other Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 1997 4 offence. Mr. Thind has contended that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars and he is ready and willing to compensate the family of deceased. It has been submitted that out of actual sentence of six months, petitioner has undergone about twenty days. Taking into consideration the above submissions of Mr. Thind that the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 21 years and is not a previous convict and his antecedents are such that no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, it will be just and appropriate that the family of deceased is compensated. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the Petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- and the same shall be paid as compensation to the family of deceased Saroj Devi. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the amount of fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner and his revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 30, 2008 “DK”