In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.591 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:21.3.2009 Munish Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur convicting him for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months besides to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 279 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides to pay a fine of Rs.750/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [2] offence under Section 304-A IPC, has been dismissed. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner who has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is that Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1), his brother Vakeel Yadav (deceased) and Baij Nath (PW-2) (a witness to the accident) were working in JCT Steel Mills Limited, Chohal. On 9.2.1998 at about 3.00 p.m., Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1) and Vakeel Yadav (deceased) came out of the premises of the JCT Steel Mills and were going to their quarters on bicycles. Baij Nath (PW-2), another worker at the Mill was following them on his bicycle. Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1) and Vakeel Yadav (deceased) had gone about a kilometer away from the gate of the Mill towards Hoshiarpur side. At that time, a Maruti car, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.PB10-Y-1115 came from the side of Chintpurni. It was being driven by Munish Kumar (petitioner) in a rash and negligent manner. The said car without blowing the horn came on the wrong side of the road and struck against the bicycle of Vakeel Yadav who sustained injuries. The other workers of the Mill stopped the car that was being driven by the petitioner. The injured Vakeel Yadav was taken to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur in the car of the petitioner. He was referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where he succumbed to his injuries on 13.2.1998. On the following day i.e. 14.2.1998, the FIR in the case was registered. Intimation about the accident in fact was received at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on 9.2.1998 i.e. on the date of the accident itself. Head Constable Dharam Singh along with other police officials had gone to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where he came to know that the injured had already been referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [3] Hospital, Ludhiana. The said Head Constable then went to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital on 10.2.1998 and sought opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the injured to make a statement. He was declared unfit to make a statement. The police could not go the hospital thereafter till 14.2.1998 due to elections as well as VIP duty. It is on 14.2.1998 when information was received about the death of Vakeel Yadav that Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Nath accompanied by other police officials went to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where the dead body of Vakeel Yadav was received and it was brought to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. After completion of inquest proceedings the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1) met ASI Ram Nath at the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and his statement (Ex.PA) was recorded on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PA/1) was registered. The Investigating Officer then went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan. He took in possession the bicycle of Vakeel Yadav, the deceased, the offending car was also taken in police possession from the premises of Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. On completion of investigation, charge-report (challan) was filed in the Court. The learned trial Court charged the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to prove its case in the trial examined 8 witnesses, besides tendered documents in evidence and closed its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the evidence appearing against him was put to him. The prosecution case was denied and the petitioner pleaded his innocence. The Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [4] learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his impugned judgment and order, which is assailed by way of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a delay of five days in the registration of the FIR which it is submitted is unexplained and this gave time to the prosecution to deliberate and implicate the petitioner. It is submitted that once the injured was taken to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur allegedly in the car which was involved in the occurrence then the FIR was liable to be registered immediately. Even the car and the cycle were taken in possession by the Police on 15.2.1998. The car was taken in possession from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and the cycle from the site of occurrence. It is submitted that there is no explanation as to who were taking care of car and cycle for six days. Therefore, the link evidence is missing. Besides, it is submitted that the statements of the alleged eye witnesses are discrepant and contain contradictions and they are not the actual eye witnesses to the occurrence. In any case, no independent witness was examined to establish that the petitioner was driving the car at the time of occurrence and that too rashly and negligently. In any case, it is submitted that the petitioner has faced the agony of prosecution and trial for the last 11 years and therefore, he is liable to be released on probation or in any case his sentence reduced. In response, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [5] petitioner in all respects and both the Courts below have recorded a clear finding of guilt and sentenced him accordingly. Therefore, it is submitted that this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and come to a finding different from that as has been reached at by the learned Courts below. Besides, it is submitted that the sentence that has been imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of probation or reduction in the sentence of imprisonment. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. There is indeed delay in the registration of the FIR, inasmuch as, the accident between the offending Maruti car driven by the petitioner and the bicycle which was ridden by Vakeel Yadav on 9.2.1998, the FIR was registered on 14.2.1998. However, it may be noticed that when Vakeel Yadav was brought to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, a chit was sent by the hospital authorities to the police station on 9.2.1998 i.e. the date of the accident. The injured being in a serious condition was referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. By the time Dharam Singh, Head Constable reached Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on 9.2.1998 he came to know that Vakeel Yadav injured had been referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Dharam Singh went to the said hospital at Ludhiana on 10.2.1998 but the doctor vide Ex.P.8/E declared the injured unfit to make a statement. Thereafter, the Police did not visit Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 11.2.1998, 12.2.1998 and 13.2.1998. Vakeel Yadav died on 13.2.1998. On receipt of information about his death, ASI Ram Nath accompanied by other police officials went to Daya Nand Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [6] Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 14.2.1998. The dead body was brought from there to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. At the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1) brother of the deceased met ASI Ram Nath and his statement (Ex.PA) was recorded. In the circumstances, the delay that has occurred is on the part of the police authorities, inasmuch as, no one visited the Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 11.2.1998, 12.2.1998 and 13.2.1998. The learned Courts below observed that Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1) was looking after his brother at Ludhiana and, therefore, he could not lodge the FIR. It would be quite natural for the family of the injured to look after him and to attend on him rather than to go to Hoshiarpur to lodge the FIR. Even otherwise it is well known that prompt lodging of a FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution version and neither is delay always fatal. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in the lodging of FIR cannot be said to be such which can be said to have resulted in false implication of the petitioner. Muni Lal Yadav (PW-1) who is the brother of the deceased Vakeel Yadav had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. Rather, the endeavour in the part of the family of the victim would be that the real culprit who is involved in the occurrence is punished rather than an innocent person being falsely implicated. Therefore, the delay by itself in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not such which can be said to have affected the case of the prosecution. The fact that the offending car and the cycle on which Vakeel Yadav (deceased) was riding were taken in possession after six days of the occurrence is also inconsequential. The same were taken in possession on 15.2.1998 i.e. a day after the FIR was registered on 14.2.1998. It having Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [7] already been held that the delay in registering the FIR is not fatal, the delay in taking the car and the bicycle in possession, therefore, is of no consequence. As regards the cycle being taken from the place of occurrence after about six days of the occurrence it may be noticed that generally, the case property which is involved in an accident would be left there or, in any case, made available to the Police as no one would want to keep the same in his possession. Besides, the case property was only a cycle which was there at the spot and that too in a damaged condition. As such, no one would even otherwise be interested in the same. Therefore, the fact that it was taken in possession from the place of occurrence after considerable delay would not mean that the link evidence in the case is missing. The discrepancies and contradictions which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the statement of the eye witnesses are not such which would, in any manner, affect the case of the prosecution. The non- joining of independent witnesses cannot also be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material that has been brought on record. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory in nature and is to be exercised for correcting miscarriage of justice and is not to be equated with the power of an appellate Court and neither is it to be treated as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. The evidence is to be only re-appreciated in case there are Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [8] glaring features brought to the notice of the Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. No such glaring features have been brought to the notice of this Court which would warrant the re- appreciation of evidence on record. The learned Courts below have concurrently held the petitioner to be guilty of the offences for which he was charged and no failure or miscarriage of the justice is shown to have been occasioned. Therefore, the findings and conclusions reached at by the learned trial Court and the learned lower appellate Court are sound and convincing and call for no interference by this Court. It may, however, be noticed that the petitioner has indeed faced the travails of prosecution and trial for the last 11 years. The findings of guilt have been recorded against him for the offences under Section 304-A and 279 IPC. A worker on bicycle was killed, therefore, in the facts and circumstances it is not a case where the benefit of probation is liable to be extended. However, ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from that of one year to six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. It may be noticed that the petitioner had stopped his car and taken the injured to the hospital. Therefore, the said conduct of the petitioner would warrant that the sentence of imprisonment is reduced for the offence under Section 304-A IPC from one year to six months. It would also in the facts and circumstances be just and expedient that compensation of an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the family of the deceased by asking the petitioner to pay the same. The fine of Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and that of Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC shall also be paid as compensation to the family of the victim Vakeel Yadav. Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [9] Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to that of six months and the petitioner is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the family of the victim. The power to award compensation to the family of the deceased while passing an order of conviction is not ancillary to other sentences but is in addition thereto. The intent of awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the family of the victim is not in the sense an adequate compensation but is only a measure to reassure the family of the victim that it has not been forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to the crime as well as reconciling the family of the victim with the offender. Besides, the amount of fine of Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC shall also be paid to the family of the victim as compensation. The sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC shall remain intact. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Accordingly, while maintaining the order of conviction, the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from one year to six months and the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the family of the victim. The amount of fine of Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC shall also be paid to the family of the victim. The compensation shall be paid and deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court which shall disburse it to the family of the victim in accordance with law. The substantive sentences of imprisonment Cr. Rev. No.591 of 2009 [10] shall, however, run concurrently. With the modification in the sentence and the order of payment of compensation, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. March 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*