Crl. Rev. No. 257 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev. No. 257 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.3.2009 Gulam Hassan ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. **** S.S. SARON, J. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat has been dismissed. The prosecution case is that on 20.5.1996, a message regarding death of Suresh Kumar son of Bale Ram due to a motor vehicle accident was received from General Hospital Panipat. A Police party headed by Head Constable Ishwar Singh reached at the hospital and recorded the statement of Jitender son of Randhir. It is stated that on 19.5.1996 at about 8.00 p.m., he (Jitender-complainant) had come to shop of Suresh (deceased) and Ravinder for going to his village Binjhol. Ravinder and Suresh (deceased) proceeded towards the village on a scooter and he (Jitender – complainant) proceeded on his own motorcycle. When they had reached near the graveyard of village Dahar, the offending truck came from Panipat side. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. The truck hit the scooter Crl. Rev. No. 257 of 2009 [2] being driven by Ravinder due to which Ravinder and Suresh Kumar sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the same while on the way to the hospital. The driver of the offending vehicle disclosed his name and managed to flee. Ravinder also sustained some injuries. On these allegations, FIR was registered and investigations were conducted. Inquest proceedings in terms of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) were conducted. The accused (petitioner) was arrested and released on bail. After completion of investigation, charge report (challan) in terms of Section 173 CrPC was filed in the trial Court. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 9.12.1996 for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The prosecution examined eight witnesses, besides, tendered documents in evidence. The statement of the petitioner in terms of Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which the evidence appearing against him was put to him. The petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded that he was innocent. He led no evidence in defence. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat remanded the case vide order dated 20.9.2007 with the direction to put all incriminating evidence against the petitioner to him so as to provide an opportunity to explain the same and only then the case be decided afresh. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC was recorded and the incriminating evidence on record that had been produced was put to him. The petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. Besides, to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days and for the offence Crl. Rev. No. 257 of 2009 [3] under Section 337 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months. Besides, to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. As regards the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Besides, to pay a fine of Rs.600/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A sum of Rs.500/- as fine had been deposited by the petitioner when he was earlier convicted. The remaining amount of Rs.500/- was paid on his subsequent conviction on 12.12.2007. The petitioner aggrieved against the said judgment and order filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat and the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissed the same vide order dated 24.1.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner requires special consideration and lenient view. As regards the sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner has not only undergone the travails of prosecution and trial since 1996 when the occurrence took place, he is also a resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and he suffered during the earthquake in which his daughter died. It is submitted that the petitioner is only a driver and there was no intention to cause the accident. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view may be taken. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the evidence and material on record clearly show the involvement of the petitioner and therefore, in the fact and circumstance, the sentence awarded to him is adequate. I have given my thoughtful consideration to matter. It may be noticed that the petitioner has not challenged his conviction for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. It may also be noticed that the offence under Section 338 IPC was not held to be proved against the petitioner as the grievous injuries sustained Crl. Rev. No. 257 of 2009 [4] by Ravinder (PW-6) were not proved. The fact that the petitioner is a resident of Jammu and Kashmir in which State there was an earthquake and in the said earthquake, the daughter of the petitioner died does impel this Court to take the said factor into consideration. Besides, the petitioner has undergone the travail of prosecution and trial since 1996. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from one year to three months. The petitioner shall however pay a compensation in terms of Section 357 CrPC amounting to Rs.10,000/- before the learned trial Magistrate which shall be disbursed by the learned trial Magistrate to the LRs of the deceased Suresh Kumar. The amount of fine which had already been deposited by the petitioner shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of by keeping the conviction of the petitioner as intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to three months. The sentence for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC shall remain intact. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. Besides, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the learned trial Magistrate as compensation which shall be disbursed by the learned trial Magistrate to the LRs of the deceased Suresh Kumar. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 19, 2009 amit