Crl. Revision No. 411 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 411 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :4.3.2011 Manjit Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence order passed by the learned trial Court vide which the petitioner has been convicted and awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. Under Section 304-A IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further Crl. Revision No. 411 of 2011 -2- sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.12.1998, the complainant Rajinder Kumar met the police party near police station Sadar Rajpura and got recorded his statement with ASI Karnail Singh to the effect that he is resident of old Mohalla Gujjarwala at Rajpura and is working as Milk vendor. His brother Gokul Chand was also working as milk vendor. Both the brothers used to go to village Bakshiwala for collecting milk in the evening. On 3.12.1998, both the brothers were going on their cycles carrying milk drums towards village Bakshiwala. When they reached near Kaka Dhaba, then Surjit Chand son of Kala Ram, resident of village Akbarpur, who is also working as milk vendor met them. Three persons were standing after crossing Ambala-Ludhiana over bridge. At about 5.15/5.30 P.M. Gokul Chand and Surjit Chand were going in front of them, whereas complainant was behind them. In the meantime, one truck bearing registration No. PB-11C/2117 came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Manjit Singh, hit into the bicycle of Gokul Chand and he fell down on the road and sufferred multiple injuries. Thereafter FIR was registered against Manjit Singh. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan and after presentation of the challan and recording of evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for one year under Section 304-A IPC. This judgment of the learned trial Court has been affirmed by the learned District Judge. Crl. Revision No. 411 of 2011 -3- The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the accident Gokul Chand died on his way to the hospital. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are major contradictions in the statements of witness PW1 Rajinder Kumar, who is alleged complainant and eye witness to the occurrence and PW-5 ASI Karnail Singh regarding accident by the petitioner. The independent eye witness has been declared hostile. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of major contradictions in the statements of PW-1 & PW-5 no reliance can be placed on their statements for the purpose of conviction. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and orders. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. Consequently, the judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. However, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the emerging circumstances, the petitioner should be released on probation as the petitioner is facing trial since the year 1998 and has undergone almost 3 months and 5 days (13.11.2010 to 18.2.2011) of actual sentence one year rigorous imprisonment. He is a first offender. The above circumstances are sufficient to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner's conviction under Section 279, 304-A IPC is upheld and the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the remaining part of sentence the Crl. Revision No. 411 of 2011 -4- petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing bonds to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The petitioner is however, directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE