Crl. Revision No.2257 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2257 of 2005 Date of Decision: August 19, 2010 Krishan Dev .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.JS Bhullar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rup Nagar whereby judgment and order, dated 21.5.2002, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 years for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and Crl. Revision No.2257 of 2005 -2- a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine in both the offences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in paras 1 and 2 of the Trial Court judgment, are as under: “On 30.10.1999, ASI Kewal Singh along with other police companions was present near check post/tax barrier, Ghanauli in connection with check post. Then one Malkiat Singh son of Amar Singh got recorded his statement that he is resident of village Mehma Tibba, PS Nalagarh and he is working in Majhauli factory. Today i.e. on 30.10.1999, he along with his uncle Ram Kishan were coming to the side of Ghanauli on the main road, then it was about 2.3o p.m., when they reached near culvert near Ghanauli, then his uncle Ram Kishan who was ahead of them was crossing that culvert. Then a bus No.CH-01-G-5815 belonging to CTU came from the rear side and struck into his uncle Ram Kishan and the bus passed over him. Resultantly, Ram Kishan died at the spot. The driver of the bus was Krishan Dev son of Bala Dutt, resident of Modern complex, Mani Majra. This accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. After recording this statement, the police came into action and a formal FIR was recorded in Police Station, Ropar and the formal investigation was started by the police. During the course of investigation, the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ram Kishan was got conducted after Crl. Revision No.2257 of 2005 -3- preparing the inquest report, and copy of the post-mortem report was obtained, site plan of the place of accident was prepared, the vehicle involved in the accident along with documents was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo, the vehicle involved in the accident was got mechanically tested and report thereof was obtained, the site of the accident was got photographed. The accused was arrested, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the necessary investigation and other formalities, the present challan against the accused was presented in the court. 3. The accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, viz., Malkiat Singh as PW1; Piara Singh as PW2; Prem Chand as PW3; Dr.Swaranjit Singh as PW4; Satdev Sharma, Photographer as PW5; Inspector Chint Ram as PW6; SI Gurmeet Singh as PW7; Constable Satnam Singh as PW8 and Kishan Chand Guleria as PW9. 5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The present revision petition was admitted on 9.2.2006 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. Crl. Revision No.2257 of 2005 -4- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel has prayed that the petitioner is working as a daily wager and the sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 30.10.1999. Thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 11 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for about nine months. He has not misused the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 11 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court to be paid to the dependents/legal representatives of the deceased. The petitioner shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Crl. Revision No.2257 of 2005 -5- Magistrate, Ropar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 29.11.2005 and that of the Trial Court dated 21.5.2002 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 19, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No