Criminal Revision No.880 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.880 of 2002 Date of Decision:29.07.2009 Jai Parkash @ Parkash .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.4.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Jai Parkash alias Parkash accused against the judgment dated 12.12.1997/ order of sentence dated 13.12.1997 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh vide which he convicted and sentenced the aforesaid accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC or in default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on Criminal Revision No.880 of 2002 -2- 1.8.1991, the complainant Gopi Ram accompanied by Mahabir, Hawa Kaur and Neelam was returning with buffaloes from Village Pond. When they started crossing the road, around 7:00 P.M., a truck bearing registration No.HRS-3597 being driven by the accused, rashly and negligently came and struck against Hawa Kaur as well as Neelam. As a result of the impact, they both succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On the basis of Gopi Ram's statement, the case was registered. In due course of time, the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 279/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As pleaded in the grounds of revision, the learned Courts below Criminal Revision No.880 of 2002 -3- have failed to appreciate that PW2 Mahabir, who was the eye witness has failed to identify the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle and his test identification parade was not got arranged and thus the said Courts have gravely erred in recording the conviction. This plea is unsustainable. As per Ex.PA, the statement of Gopi Ram complainant, the truck after having caused the accident had collided with a black berry (jamun) tree as the driver could not control the vehicle, and, thereafter, the accused came down from the truck and on inquiry, he disclosed his identity as Jai Parkash son of Hukam Chand resident of Village Mehndipur Dabodha. In the face of this documentary evidence, there was no necessity for holding the test identification parade, which if conducted is considered as a corroborative piece of evidence. No other material point has been raised in the grounds of revision. On scrutinising and analysing the entire evidence on record, it transpires that no holes can be picked in the judgments recorded by both the Courts below. Consequently, the conviction is maintained. As per record, the petitioner has undergone 4 months and 8 days of the actual sentence. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1991, meaning thereby, this incidence is more than 17 years old. The legal heirs of the deceased Hawa Kaur and Neelam can be compensated in terms of money. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (4 months 8 days). However, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Hawa Kaur and Neelam within a period of three months. On deposit, an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of Hawa Kaur and an equal amount shall be given to the legal heirs of the deceased Neelam. With this Criminal Revision No.880 of 2002 -4- modification in the order of sentence, this revision stands dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, who shall serve a notice upon the petitioner to deposit the above-mentioned amount within a period of three months. In the event of failure to deposit of this amount, the same shall be recovered in due course of law. July 29, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No