Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.04.2010 Gurmukh Singh ..............Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. Gauravjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana HARBANS LAL,J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Gurmukh Singh accused against the judgment dated 24.8.2000/ order of sentence dated 25.8.2000 rendered by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa vide which he convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- under Section 338 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ months with a further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.6.1995, Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2005 (O&M) 2 Sant Lal made statement before the police in the terms that on that day he was going from his house to Holy Nursing Home, Hospital Sirsa on his scooter bearing registration No. RNB 6943 to enquire about the health of his relative who was lying admitted there. When he was travelling at Arya Samaj Road, his scooter was knocked down by a Matador bearing registration No. PB-04/9181being driven by the accused. He sustained serious injuries on his chest, shoulder and back in this accident, which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The case was registered on his statement. In due course, 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 and 338 I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After examining as many as five witnesses, the prosecution closed its 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 as well as false implication. In his defence, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 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 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 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. Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2005 (O&M) 3 Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to 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 recorded by these Courts 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 1995 and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Herein, the petitioner is stated to have undergone 15 days 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 (15 days), while maintaining the fine as well its default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Since the petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 26, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No