Criminal Revision No. 1760 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1760 of 2004 Date of decision: February 16, 2010 Gursewak Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, D. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Gursewak Singh (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 16.5.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 5.11.1999, on receipt of information from the Civil Hospital Sunam, ASI Kashmir Singh along with the police party reached there, where he came to know that the injured Santosh Singh being in serious condition has been referred to Patiala, whereas, dead body of Satbir Singh was lying in the mortuary. No other person was found there. On 6.11.1999, ASI Kashmir Singh again visited the hospital, where Kundan Singh complainant met him and got his statement recorded to the effect that on 5.11.1999 his cousin Devinder Singh had come to meet them on tanker bearing registration No.UP-80A- 9271. They were going to village Kinwa on the aforesaid tanker and at about 7.30 p.m. when they were about two kilometers short of Sunam, the accused, while driving his truck bearing registration No.HRJ 5615 rashly Criminal Revision No. 1760 of 2004 -2- and negligently, came from the opposite side and struck against their tanker which turned turtle. His brother Satbir Singh and Santosh Singh received grievous injuries. Ultimately Satbir Singh had died. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a formal FIR was registered. On completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. The accused was charged under Section 279/337/304-A/427 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Parmod Kumar (PW1), Satish Kumar (PW2), Dr. Baldev Singh Sahota (PW3), Kundan Singh (PW4), Devinder Singh (PW5), Harbant Singh (PW6) and ASI Kashmir Singh (PW7) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that he had stopped on the truck at Police picket. The police was demanding entry fee from him. When he refused to pay the same, he was asked to park his truck on one side from where the police party took the vehicle and false case was planted upon him. However, no evidence was led in defence. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was 70 years old. He has already undergone about 4- ½ months of the substantive sentence. Learned counsel has further stated that the accused is only hand to mouth and is very poor person having large family to support, therefore, he be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending in the court since then. He has already undergone 4- ½ months of the substantive Criminal Revision No. 1760 of 2004 -3- sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioner is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur for compliance. February 16, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge