IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1233 of 2009 Date of decision : July 02, 2009 Mandip Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Mandip Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. According to the prosecution version, on 13.4.2001, the petitioner while driving Bus No. PB-10-N-9966 rashly and negligently, while over taking some other vehicle, hit into an Auto Rickshaw coming from opposite direction, resulting in the death of Preeti, one of the occupants of the Auto Rickshaw. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 convicted the petitioner under sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for offence under section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous Criminal Revision No. 1233 of 2009 -2- imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under section 304-A IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 4.5.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the records of the trial court. Pooja Rani PW1 and Beena Rani PW3 were both travelling in the same Auto Rickshaw which was being driven by Bhupinder Singh PW2. All these three witnesses have supported the prosecution case that the petitioner while driving the Bus rashly and negligently hit the Auto Rickshaw resulting in death of Preeti. However, after examination-in- chief of Bhupinder Singh PW2 was recorded, his cross-examination was deferred and in the meanwhile, he was won over by the petitioner and therefore, in cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner had not caused the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Bhupinder Singh complainant has, thus, not supported the prosecution case. The contention cannot be accepted because Bhupinder Singh supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief but after his cross-examination was deferred, he was won over by the petitioner which is apparent from the perusal of the entire statement of this witness. In addition to it, the prosecution case has been supported by Pooja Rani PW1 and Beena Rani PW3 who had no animus to depose falsely against the petitioner. They are eye witnesses of the accident. The offending Bus Criminal Revision No. 1233 of 2009 -3- was also left at the spot of the accident. Consequently, the prosecution case is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the courts below and in exercise of revisional power, evidence is not to be re-appraised and re-appreciated. No apparent illegality has been committed by the courts below in recording the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner has been facing trial for more than eight years and therefore, sentence of imprisonment be reduced. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have carefully considered the matter. Keeping in view all the circumstances, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under section 304-A IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of one year to rigorous imprisonment of nine months while maintaining the sentence of fine for the said offence as well as maintaining the sentence for offence under section 279 IPC. With reduction in the sentence aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 02, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'