46 l CriminalRevision No16 of 2009 1 tJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No46 of 2009 Decided onxl 102009 r KuIdeepSingh Petitioner 0 C Versus I C5 State of Haryana Respondent Z CORAMm HONBLE MR JUSTICE KC PURI 0 I Present Mr SandeepJasujaAdvocate for the petitioner Otj Mr Vikas ChaudharyA A G Haryana K C PURl J em Z tl This is a revision petition againstthe judgmentdated 232009 passed by Shri lMalik Iearned Sessions Judge Rewari vide which the appealpreferredby the accusederevisionist againstthe judgmentdated 11 2007 and order of sentence dated 152007 passedby Shri Virender Malik Iearned Sub Divisional Judicial MagistrateKosIi holdinghim guiltyunder Sections 279 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code n short the IPCI and to undergorigorousimprisonment asunder Under Section 279 IPC Rigorousimprisonment for a periodof six months Kumar Suresh 2013.04.04 10: 36 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 47 1 t V4 Criminal RevIsion No46 of 2009 2 4 Under Section 337 IPC Rigorousimprisonment for a periodof six months and fine of Rs2001 For nonoaymentof fine the convict is to undergorigorous imprisonment for a periodof one month Under Section 30444 IPC Rigorousimprisonment for a periodof two yearsand fine of R10001 For of fine the convict is to 1 undergorigorous for a periodof three months 0 0 The substantive sentences were ordered to run I I The brief facts of the prosecutioncase are that on 1 Z 291 999 complainantHemant Kumar reached the bus stop of r Gudiyanl on the turningto Jatusana for goingto Rewari Dinesh I and AjayKumar were found standingby the side of the road In the a5 meanwhile a new scooter on which appliedfor had been written 00 make Vespacame from the side of Jatusanaapil was drivingthat 7 Z scooterand Rakesh was ridingits pillion The moment the scooter reached the turninga Tata 407 bearingregistration No1Rm550392 came from the side of bus stop Gudiyanibeingdriven rashlyand negligentlyhit the scooter of Kapilfrom its drivers side Kapil fell on sand at a distance Rakesh suffered injuriesin his head and chest Side of Tata407 had also hit Dinesh and AjayKumar who had also suffered injuriesat their head Iegsand hands The said Tata407 was stoppedfor a shott while duringwhich its driver Iooked back from the window by his side and the saw him properly The driver of said Tata 407 succeeded in escaping Kumar Suresh 2013.04.04 10: 36 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 48 4 Criminal Revision No46 of 2009 3 4 towards Jatusana with his vehicle The injuredwere taken in the hospitalHowever in the way Rakesh breathed his Iast on account of injuriessuffered byhim in the accident PoIice of Police Station Kosli was informed and the investigation commenced Postmortem of the deceased was got conductecl The accused was arrestecl Aer 1 completionof necessary investigation challan againstthe accused was presentedin the Court 0 0 On appearance of the accused in the Court copiesof the documents were suppliedto the accused under rules Findinga primafacie case the accused was charged Z under Sections 279 337 and 304A IPC to which he pleadednot 2 r guiltyand claimed trial I The prosecutionItl order to substantiate the charge A5 examined Dr0abas W l ShyamKishore OWe21 Satbir OO Singh PW31 Shree Chand JW41 Hemant Kumar PV51 Ajay S Z Kumar PW61 Inder OW71Khem Chand W1 Ballu Ram V m 91 Dharambir PW401 Mahesh Kumar W4 1l Head Constable SatyaNarain W421 ASl RajednerParshad PW 13 InspectorSurajbhanPW141 Drlander Sekhar PW 51and Drlleelam Thapper 0W4 61 and the evidence of prosecutionwas closed by the Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr all the evidence were putto him which he denied and pleadedhis innocence He however did not optto Iead evidence in defence Kumar Suresh 2013.04.04 10: 36 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 Cl 0 Criminal Revision N846 of 2009 4 4 After perusalof the evidence the trial Court convicted the 4 accused under Sections 279 337 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergorigorousimprisonmentas narrated above Feeiingdisesatisfiedwith the above said judgmentthe petitionerhas preferredthe appealbefore the First AppellateCoun m and the Iearned Sessions Judge vide judgmentdated 2L 32009 r 2 dismissed the appealof the appellant 0 0 Still dissatisfied with both the judgments dated I 11 20071152007 and 243009 the present revlslon petition I has been fiied Z have heard Iearned counsel for the petitionerand 2 Iearned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case I with their assistance 06 Learned counsel for the petitionerhas submitted that no 00 test identificationparadewas conducted The prosecutionhas failed W2 Z to prove that it was the accused who was driving Tata 407 bearing Ll registration NoHR550392 at the time of occurrence It is also not provedthat said truck was beingdriven rashlyand In these circumstances the petitionershould have been acquittedby both the Courts below have carefullyconsidered the said submissions but do not find any force in that submission Both the Courts below have dealt the above said argument and came to the conclusion that it was the accused who was drivingthe vehicle rashlyand So Kumar Suresh 2013.04.04 10: 36 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO 4 CriminalRevision No46 of 2009 5 4 much so the owner of the vehicle has come into the witness box to deposethat it was the petitionerwho was drivingthe vehicleThe submission made by Iearned counsel for the petitionerto the eHect that the statement of owner cannot be acceptedIS without any substance He has no reason to falsely implicatethe accused m Othetwise also Hemant Kumar 51and AjayKumar Ne61have r 2 supportedthe case of the prosecutionon all material particulars 0 0 Both of them have been thoroughlycrossexamined and nothing I c could be broughton the file to discard their testimony Their I testimonyproves beyondreasonable doubt that it was the accused Z who was drivingthe vehicle at the relevant time and that he was 2 drivingthe vehicle rashlyand negligently I Learned counsel for the petitionerhas further submitted 08 that sentence of two years is excessive The petitioneris facingtrial ri0 for the Iast more than ten years and has undergoneincarceration for 7 Z a periodof more than six months as per custodycertificate So fl prayerhas been made for reduction in sentence to the already undergone have carefully considered the said submission in this case there are two persons who have Iost their Iives and two persons have received injuries4owever he is facing the trial for the Iast about ten years So balancingwith the case of both the parties the ends of justicewould be met in case his sentence is reduced to one year under Section 30A IPC instead of two years awarded bythe Courts below and I order accordingiy Kumar Suresh 2013.04.04 10: 36 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 7 CriminalRevision No46 of 2009 6 1 The sentence of fine under Section 304A 1PC and sentence of imprisonment under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and fine under Section 337 IPC stand affirmed However the period of his detention during and pendencyof appeallrevisionif any is ordered m to be set off againsthis substantivesentence With the above said modificafion in the sentence the 0 C3 appealstands disposedof I C5 A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict I compliance Z IZ 2009 1 SV JUDGE I 1 c6 QO 7 tl 1 A 1 1 Kumar Suresh 2013.04.04 10: 36 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document