IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.776 of 1997 Date of decision: 18th January, 2010 Satnam Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Satnam Singh son of Kehar Singh has filed present revision petition. He was tried in case FIR No.154 dated 21.08.1992 registered at Police Station Samana under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Samana held him guilty for offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 21st August, 1992, Harbhajan Singh along with his relation Jeet Singh used to work in Samana Steel Factory. After the duty hours, they were returning to their house on their cycles. At about 7.30 a.m. one tanker carrying milk came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner. Jeet Singh was going in the right direction, when the tanker hit his cycle, Jeet Singh fell down Criminal Revision No.776 of 1997 and the tyre of the tanker passed over the head of Jeet Singh. Jeet Singh died at the spot. In the FIR, it was stated that later Harbhajan Singh learnt the name of the driver of tanker as Satnam Singh. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner was charged for offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. Prosecution examined PW-1 Kailash Sharma, who had taken the photographs Ex.P1 to P3 of the spot. Dr. Satish Arora PW-2 conducted autopsy and opined that the cause of death was a vehicular accident. Harbans Singh PW-3 Motor Mechanic proved test report of the tanker Ex.PW3/A. Joginder Singh PW-4, who reached at the spot was examined as eye witness. He had not supported the prosecution regarding the identity of the accused and he was declared hostile. Harbhajan Singh complainant appeared as PW-5 and stated in the Court that when the accident took place, driver alighted from the tanker and disclosed his name and then ran away. Mr.B.P.S. Dhillon, appearing for the petitioner, has assailed this improvement in the testimony of PW-5 Harbhajan Singh. He has urged that in his statement, Ex.PW5/A complainant had mentioned that later he learnt the name of the accused as Satnam Singh, whereas in Court he had stated that accused had disclosed his name. According to Mr.Dhillon, this is a material improvement and the testimony of PW-5 Harbhajan Singh should be discarded. This argument was available to the petitioner before the two courts below. Revisional Court cannot re- appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence until patent irregularity or illegality is pointed out. The revisional Court is hesitant to come to the rescue of the petitioner. Statement Ex.PW5/A, on the basis of which FIR was registered, only states that later name of the accused was known as Satnam Singh. Whereas in the Court when the witness stated that the accused told his 2 Criminal Revision No.776 of 1997 name to be Satnam Singh, he was only explaining as to how later he learnt the name of the accused. Therefore, on this score alone, this Court will not be in a position to set aside the finding of fact recorded by two courts below. At this stage, Mr.Dhillon has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 21st August, 1992. Period of more than 17 years is going to elapse. Petitioner has already suffered pain and agony of protracted trial. It is submitted that petitioner had not committed any other offence before or after the date of present occurrence. Petitioner is leading life of a law abiding citizen. Furthermore, in the last 18 years, petitioner has fastened himself with many responsibilities of the family and is the sole bread earner of his family. Counsel has submitted that by sending the petitioner behind the bars, no useful purpose will be served, as he is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, counsel appearing for the State, informed that petitioner had already undergone 1 month and 21 days. Taking into consideration long protracted trial, antecedents of the accused, the fact that he is sole bread earner of the family and he is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of imprisonment awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed by the trial Court to the legal heirs of the deceased Jeet Singh. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. 3 Criminal Revision No.776 of 1997 With the modifications in sentence, noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 18, 2010 rps 4