Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2010. Date of Decision : 20.4.2011 Navneet Chopra & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. RPS Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision arises from the following facts:- On April 2nd, 2000 Navneet Chopra and his wife Suman Chopra-petitioners engaged Manak Ram, Varinder Yadav (both deceased) and Ganga Parshad-injured to demolish the pillars of verandah of their house situated at Model Town, Jalandhar. Unfortunately, when the aforesaid three victims were demolishing the pillars, the verandah collapsed and they came under the debris. As a result, Manak Ram and Varinder Yadav died on the spot and Ganga Parshad received injuries. 2. Prosecution was launched on the statement of Mrs. Vijay Chopra (PW-1) wife of Sh. Harish Kumar Chopra brother of Navin Chopra-petitioner. Petitioners were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Prosecution in support of its case, examined Vijay Chopra (PW-1), Dr. Shamsher Singh (PW-2) who medico-legally examined Ganga Parshad, Sushil Kumar (PW-3), Dr. Ashok who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Manak Ram and Varinder Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2010 2 Yadav, Nachhattar Singh (PW-5) and Nirlep Singh, Head Constable (PW-6). 4. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners denied their complicity with the offence in question and pleaded that there was complete absence of any criminal intention or criminal negligence on their part. 5. In defence, the petitioners examined Pawan Kumar (DW-1). 6. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar by judgment dated August 26th, 2008 convicted the petitioners under Sections 304-A and 506 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation under Section 506 IPC. 7. Aggrieved of the same, petitioners preferred an appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by judgment dated March 19th, 2010 maintained the conviction of the petitioners but reduced their sentence from two years to 1½ years under Section 304-A IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits rather prays for reduction of sentence of the petitioners to the period already undergone, that is, 1 month and 11 days. He has has also pleaded that the amount of fine be increased to some reasonable amount on the grounds that (i) the petitioners are senior citizens; (ii) they had no criminal intention; (iii) act of the petitioners was not the proximate cause of death of the deceased; (iv) they were never involved in any criminal activity before or after registration of the present case and; (iv) they have undergone the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 10 years. 9. The grounds taken justify the request made so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2010 3 amount of fine is increased from Rs.5000/- to Rs.55,000/- each under Section 304-A IPC. The increased amount of fine, that is, Rs.1 lac in all shall be deposited by the petitioners before the trial Court within 30 days from today along with names of legal representatives of the deceased because they are known to the petitioners as informed by learned counsel representing them. On deposit of amount, the same shall be paid to the legal representatives of the victims as compensation after due verification. 10. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 20.4.2011 SN