IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 650 of 2011 Dated: 29.04.2011 Gajinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Batala vide his judgement and order of sentence dated 5.4.2006 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 304-A of the IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur upheld the conviction of the petitioner as well as sentence awarded to him under Section 279 of the IPC, but reduced his sentence under Section 304-A of the IPC to one year. Feeling dis-satisfied, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the conviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-examination of the Investigating Officer as well as the photographer. He has contended that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnessess. It was submitted that the version given by PW-1 Sudha Singh-Complainant has been falsified by the statement of PW-6-Ranjit Singh to whom the deadbody was handed over at the spot as he, in his cross-examination, deposed that no Crl. Rev. No. 650 of 2011 2 accidental vehicle was present at that time. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgments under challenge and the petitioner has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. He has placed on record reply-cum-affidavit of Sh. Iqbaljit Singh, DSP officiating Superintendent Central Jail, Gurdaspur, which shows that the petitioner has already undergone custody of one month and 10 days. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgments. The prosecution case is that on 16.6.2001 the complainant along with his son Mukhtiar Singh was going to Baba Ghuman Wale. In the meantime, Tata Sumo No. 7400 (white colour), which was being driven by the petitioner came rashly and negligently without blowing any horn and struck the bycycle of his son, as a result of which his son died at the spot. The petitioner-accused stayed there for a while and thereafter escapted from the spot. The complainant, while appearing as PW-1, has supported the prosecution version and his statement has remained unshattered. As far as the presence of the vehicle at the spot is concerned, there is documentary evidence on the file which relates to the recovery of the Tata Sumo HR-26H-7004 prepared at the spot on 16.6.2001. The recovery memo has been proved on record as Exhibit PC. It was signed by Constable Jarnail Singh and independent witness Avtar Singh. This recovery memo shows that the vehicle in question had been taken into possession by the police party from the spot on the day of occurrence. It also bears the engine number as well as chassis number of the vehicle along with its model and Crl. Rev. No. 650 of 2011 3 neither the petitioner-accused nor anybody elase has ever raised any objection on the vehicle, been taken into possession by the police. As regards the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and photographer, it is sufficie to observe that this aspect has been dealt with in a correct way by the Lower Courts and I do not find any ground to differ with the conviction arrived at by them. The conviction of the petitioner is upheld and ordered accordingly. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence . Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, who is now 50 years old. As per the custody certificate, he has undergone 1 month 27 days till date. He is an Ex-Army man and a first offender. Ends of justice would be fully met if a direction is given to the petitioner to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the family of the deceased and he is given benefit of probation as by sending him jail at this stage to serve the remaining sentence would not be at any avail. A direction is given to release the petitioner on probation for 1 year as per satisfaction of CJM, Batala. Accordingly the revision petition is disposed of . (RITU BAHRI) 29.04.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)