Criminal Revision No.2235 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2235 of 2003 Date of Decision: September 22, 2010 Wazir Mohmad ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S.Chahal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ** Sabina, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ` IPC') vide judgment dated 9.1.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 279 IPC. He was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to Criminal Revision No.2235 of 2003 2 pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Hence, the present revision petition by petitioner. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.11.1997 ASI Ajaib Singh alongwith police officials was present in chowk Sahnewal in connection with patrolling duty, where Charan Singh son of Modan Singh met him and got recorded his statement. In his statement he alleged that on 6.11.97 he on his bicycle was going towards his village Seelon from Ludhiana after doing some of his personal work and at about 5.45 P.M. when he reached in front of Friends Filling Station, Nandpur G.T.Road, 2/3 persons were going ahead of him. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No.HP-19-4537 came there from the backside (Ludhiana side) and hit into the trolley. The complainant alleged that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle on a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. He also did not blow any horn. As a result of accident trolley turned aside towards the left side and a cyclist was crushed thereunder and died at the spot. The complainant further alleged that when he went close to the deceased-Paramjit Singh he found the cyclist to be son-in-law of his uncle (Chacha), who was working in Soap Factory in village Pawa. In the meantime, Jaswant Singh also reached there. The Criminal Revision No.2235 of 2003 3 truck driver stopped the truck at some distance and the Hindu driver ran away from the spot. Lastly, the complainant alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Later on the complainant left Jaswant Singh at the spot and went to inform the police and on his way, the police party headed by ASI Ajaib Singh met him at about 8.00 p.m. in Sahnewak Chowk”. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner while coming from Ludhaina side was driving truck No.HP-19-4537 and he struck against a tractor trolley, as a result of which, the trolley turned turtle and the deceased who was riding a bicycle came under the trolley and died at the spot. PW2 Charan Singh, complainant and PW3 Ranjit Singh, driver of the tractor trolley have duly supported the prosecution case. The complainant had no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. Had the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, the complainant would have lodged the FIR against the driver of the tractor. The complainant, who is the relative of the deceased, had no reason to shield the real culprit and involve the petitioner falsely in this case. The truck driven by the petitioner was recovered from the spot since it had stopped at some distance from the place of accident. As per the mechancial report on record, the truck as well as the tractor were road worthy and were free from any mechanical defects. In these circumstances, the Courts below have rightly ordered the conviction Criminal Revision No.2235 of 2003 4 of the petitioner under Section 279/304-A IPC. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1997, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant under Section 304-A IPC. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC is maintained, however, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. With this modification, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sabina ) Judge September 22, 2010 arya