IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2283 of 2003 Date of decision: 15th February, 2010 Jaspal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jaspal Singh son of Mohinder Singh was named as accused in case FIR No.26 dated 26th February, 1997 registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Sucha Singh complainant appeared before ASI Mukhtiar Singh. At that time, ASI Mukhtiar Singh along with companion police officials was on patrol duty near Railway Crossing, Jandiala Road, Tarn Taran. The complainant stated that his son Karambir Singh aged 10/11 years was student of Guru Harkrishan Public School, Tarn Taran. On 26th February, 1997 at 12.30 p.m. he along with his friend Sarup Singh had gone to pick up his child, as examination was over. When he entered the main gate of the school then it was about 12.30 p.m. Karambir Singh after undertaking his examination was coming towards his father when a school bus bearing registration No.PB-02H- 9689 driven by present petitioner came at a very high speed. The driver Criminal Revision No.2283 of 2003 had blown no horn and was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The vehicle ran over the child of the complainant, who died at the spot. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner was charged by the trial Court for offence under Section 279/304-A IPC. Prosecution examined Dr.Pawanpreet Singh as PW-1, who conducted autopsy on the dead body. The complainant Sucha Singh appeared as PW-2. Another eye witness Sarup Singh appeared as PW-3. ASI Hans Raj appeared as PW-4, SI Mukhtiar Singh as PW-5, Amanjit Singh as PW-6 and HC Attar Singh as PW-7. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of witnesses and came to the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of offence under Section 304-A and 279 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ months under Section 304-A IPC. Petitioner was further sentenced under Section 279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court below upheld the conviction and placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW-2 Sucha Singh complainant and Sarup Singh PW-3. However, sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from 1 ½ years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has read the testimony of witnesses in Court. He has stated that Mukhtiar Singh ASI PW-5 admitted in his statement in Court that there were about 70-80 teachers in the school and no teacher had come forward to make statement. Counsel has further submitted that no school teacher has been examined by the prosecution, therefore, it can be safely inferred 2 Criminal Revision No.2283 of 2003 that the presence of Sucha Singh father complainant PW-2 and Sarup Singh PW-3 at the spot is not made out. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot tread on the path of re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence. Two courts below have come to the conclusion that the testimony of PW-2 Sucha Singh complainant and PW-3 Sarup Singh aspire confidence, therefore, counsel has failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity which warrants interference by this Court. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that occurrence in the present case had taken place in February, 1997. A period of about 13 years is going to elapse. Counsel has submitted that taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial, sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to already undergone. It has been submitted that petitioner has undergone about 3 months of his actual sentence. In the school premises, petitioner was posted as driver of school bus. It was incumbent upon him to take care of the tiny toddlers, who are the students of the school. Therefore, from the very conduct of the petitioner, rash and negligent driving is made out. This circumstance is to be construed as an aggravating circumstance. However, the fact that petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 13 years, is a mitigating circumstance. The Court has to draw balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Thus, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to eight months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained. Sentences awarded under Section 304-A IPC and 279 IPC shall run concurrently. 3 Criminal Revision No.2283 of 2003 With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 15, 2010 rps 4