Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 2004 Date of Decision: 9.3.2010 Ram Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Ram Singh son of Garib Singh, who has preferred the present revision petition, was named as accused in case FIR No. 249 dated 22.8.1983 registered at Police Station Pehowa, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. In the present case, the petitioner, on 22.8.1983, in the area of Pehowa, while driving a truck bearing registration No. HRK-6109 in a rash and negligent manner, had caused death of Laxmi Chand son of Singh Ram. Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 2004 2 The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, who, after upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, had dismissed the appeal. The FIR, in the present case, was recorded on the statement made by Jaswant Singh that on 22.8.1983, he along with deceased Laxmi Chand, Des Raj and Raj Kumar, all employees of Haryana Milk Food, a Public Limited Company, were going to their house on bicycles after finishing their duty. When they had reached near Rama Rice Mills, the offending truck, driven by the petitioner, had come at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The truck driver had lost its control and had hit Laxmi Chand, due to which he died at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW.1 Jaswant Singh and PW.2 Des Raj, therefore, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of petitioner. He has also nothing in his arsenal except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements and is conscious that this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. In this situation, learned counsel contends that occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1983; a period of 27 years is going to elapse and the petitioner has suffered a lot of mental pain and agony of protracted trial. He further contends that the petitioner has not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence and is a sole bread earner of his family. Therefore, he submits that in the interest of justice, petitioner be not sent behind the bars, at this stage, Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 2004 3 but he is prepared to compensate the family of deceased as it may provide some solace to the family of deceased Laxmi Chand. I find merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 9, 2010 “DK”