Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2006 Date of Decision: 8.12.2011 Harvail Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Petitioner Harvail Singh was nominated as an accused in case FIR No. 16 dated 17.2.1999, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Case set out by the prosecution, against the petitioner, is that on 17.2.1999 at about 3.30 P.M. in the area of Modern Nursery, Jalandhar Road, Batala, he was driving the Mini Bus bearing registration No. PAB-268 on the public road in rash and negligent manner and thereby he had caused death of Hardev Singh and Simranjit Kaur. The trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 29.10.2002, held the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2006 2 and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 200, under Section 279 IPC, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 300, under Section 304-A IPC, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 28.10.2006, upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the statement Ex.PC made by Amandeep Singh, on the basis whereof, formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was registered. Amandeep Singh, on 17.2.1999 at about 5.00 P.M. in the Civil Hospital, Batala, got recorded his statement to PW.4 Baldev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. In his statement, Amandeep Singh stated that he was employed as a part time Assistant in the Johal Hospital, Batala. On 17.2.1999 at about 3.30 P.M., he along with Balwinder Singh son of Bachan Singh, caste Jat, resident of Bahadur Hussen, was going on a scooter towards Octroi Post, Qadian. Ahead of them, Hardev Singh son of Dalip Singh, caste Jat, resident of 242 Urban Estate along with his daughter Simranjit Kaur was also going on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-18-C-9982 towards the above said Octroi Post. When they reached near Modern Nursery, then from the Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2006 3 opposite side, a Mini Bus bearing registration No. PAB-268 was coming. The name of driver of the offending bus was lateron learnt as Harvail Singh, resident of village Talwandi Bakhta, Police Station Ranger Nangal. He was driving the bus at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn, which hit the scooter of Hardev Singh. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot along with the offending bus. Due to fall from the scooter, both the riders i.e. Hardev Singh and Simranjit Kaur received serious injuries. After arranging the conveyance, both the injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Batala. On arrival at the hospital, they were declared as dead. Prosecution, to prove its case, examined the eye witnesses i.e. PW.2 Balwinder Singh and PW.3 Amandeep Singh, complainant. PW.1 Nand Lal, Mechanic, gave his test report regarding the offending bus, whereas PW.4 Dr. Sukhdeep Singh, had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of both the deceased. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and stated that the accident had not taken place with his bus. In defence, the petitioner has examined DW.1 Saint Daya Ram, who has stated that on 17.2.1999, he was passenger of the offending bus and when the bus reached at the place of occurrence, two dead bodies were found lying at the spot and it was heard that the accident was caused by Tata Sumo Vehicle. Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has doubted the presence of both the eye witnesses at the Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2006 4 spot and submitted that they had not witnessed the occurrence. It has been urged that Hardev Singh, deceased, was brother of PW.4 Dr.Sukhdeep Singh Johal whereas PW.2 Balwinder Singh and PW.3 Amandeep Singh were employed in the hospital of Dr. Johal, therefore, they were interested witnesses. I am not impressed by this argument. The trial Court, while placing implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.2 Balwinder Singh and PW.3 Amandeep Singh and had taken into consideration the testimony of DW.1 Saint Daya Ram to hold that the defence witness has admitted that the bus, wherein he was travelling, was being driven by the accused. Taking time of the accident into consideration, the trial Court held that the defence witness has strengthened the prosecution version especially when the two eye witnesses have stated that the bus, which caused the accident, was having inscription “Captain” written on it. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and do re-appraisal of the evidence. The finding given by both the Courts below suffered from no infirmity. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, in alternative, has prayed that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1999 and a period of more than 12 years has already elapsed. The petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a sole bread earner of his family. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence. Taking into consideration antecedents of the petitioner and sufferance of protracted trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2006 5 will be fully met in case sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the petitioner, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, is reduced to that of one year. However, the sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. With the aforesaid modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the petitioner, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 8, 2011 “DK”