Criminal Revision No.215 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.215 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 25-3-2010 Ved Parkash ......... Petitioner Vs State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Yashwinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.1.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by accused Ved Parkash against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 4.12.2002 rendered by the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri vide which he convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further Criminal Revision No.215 of 2005 (O&M) 2 undergo simple imprisonment for four months with a further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.1.1994 around 1.30 P.M. the complainant alongwith other passengers was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-16-0794 being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a kikkar tree standing on the berm of the road with the result many occupants sustained grievous injuries. However, one boy sumeet and one lady Poonam succumbed to their injuries. The case was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. In his defence, he examined DW-1 Balwant Singh. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to Criminal Revision No.215 of 2005 (O&M) 3 take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the said Courts. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1994 and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has undergone three months of the actual sentence. The petitioner while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (three months) while maintaining the fine as well as default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Since the revision has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 25, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No