IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2003 Date of Decision : February 23, 2010 Ramphal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. T.C.Dhanwal, Advocate Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for an offence under Section 304-A IPC on the allegations that on September 30, 1992, he drove his truck in a rash and negligent manner in the area of village Kharawar and while trying to overtake the bus from its wrong side, he ran over Smt.Mukhtiari, who succumbed to her injuries at the spot. Vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2000/2.11.2000, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Rohtak, on 29.1.2003 by maintaining the order of conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one and a half years. He Crl. Revision No. 429 of 2003 -2- then filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., which was admitted on 24.5.2003 and he was ordered to be released on bail. According to the FIR registered at the instance of complainant Ganga Ram, Smt.Mukhtiari was returning to her house and moving on the left side of Sampla-Kharawar road. The petitioner while driving his truck rashly and negligently and without blowing the horn came from the side of Sampla. He tried to overtake a roadways bus moving ahead of him from its wrong side. In the process, he lost control over the truck and hit Smt.Mukhtiari. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses including Ganga Ram PW1 and Deep Chand PW2, who deposed about the manner in which the accident had taken place. The petitioner had pleaded false implication and innocence. However, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his plea. The Courts below believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. I have perused the orders passed by the learned Courts below while convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the Courts below believed the eye-witnesses, namely, Ganga Ram and Deep Chand. Both of them had consistently deposed before the trial Court that it was the petitioner who while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner was trying to overtake the roadways bus Crl. Revision No. 429 of 2003 -3- moving ahead of him from its wrong side and in the process ran over Smt.Mukhtiari. The identity of the petitioner stands established as he was apprehended at the spot and on being asked he disclosed his particulars. In view of the above, it cannot be said that any illegality or infirmity was committed by the Courts below in convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC. The accident had taken place in the month of September, 1992. Ever since then, the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. When the trial Court had examined him under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner had pleaded that he was a poor man, having three small children and old parents to look after. After the dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court on 29.1.2003, the petitioner was taken into custody to serve the sentence imposed upon him. He was granted the concession of bail only on 24.5.2003, when the present revision was admitted. He had, thus, undergone a substantive period of about four months in jail. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence. The ends of justice would be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine can be enhanced by Rs.25,000/- so that the said enhanced amount may be paid to the legal heirs of deceased, as compensation. Crl. Revision No. 429 of 2003 -4- Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, sentence of fine is enhanced by Rs.25,000/-. The same be paid within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be required to undergo imprisonment for six months. The additional amount of fine, when paid, be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Smt.Mukhtiari, as compensation. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 23, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1