IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.485 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 16, 2009 Pawan Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.SS Kharb, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioner stands convicted under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for the offence for driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into the death of Raj Kumar, the victim. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner-accused was further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently on 7.8.2000. The appeal of the petitioner-accused was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 28.2.2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously questioned Crl. Revision No.485 of 2002 -2- the correctness of the conviction and has restricted his arguments to the quantum of sentence. In the circumstances, I deem it necessary to refer to the details of the FIR registered against the petitioner. 3. FIR No.35 dated 7.3.1996 was registered against the petitioner- accused under Section 279/304-A/427 of the IPC, Police Station Farukh Nagar on the statement made by Viresh (PW2). The accident took place on 6.3.1996. PW2 along with his brother Raj Kumar, the victim, was going to his village on Scooter No.HR-26-1308. The scooter was being driven by his brother Raj Kumar, the victim, and the complainant was a pillion rider. When they were close to the turn of village Farukh Nagar, a jeep bearing No.DL-ICE-5710, which was being driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side. The said jeep struck against the scooter. As a result of the accident, Raj Kumar received simple injuries in his chest and right leg. The petitioner ran away from the spot and the injured was moved to the hospital in some other vehicle. The statement of Ranbir (PW3), the eye witness of the occurrence, was recorded. This witness supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the petitioner-accused. 4. Learned trial Court observed that in the statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner-accused himself admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The petitioner also admitted that Raj Kumar, the injured, was taken to the hospital by him, who subsequently, died as a result of injuries received by him in the accident. On the basis of statement of complainant who accompanied the deceased, the learned trial Court held that the Crl. Revision No.485 of 2002 -3- accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner - accused. Exhibit PW1/B and Exhibit PW1/1/A, the mechanical reports of the vehicles, also indicate that there was no mechanical break down of the jeep in question prior to the accident. In the instant case, the petitioner has been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC for rash and negligent driving resulting into loss of life of Raj Kumar, brother of the complainant. It is relevant to note that there is no allegation that petitioner-accused was under influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. The act of the petitioner is rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case that the petitioner was driving the vehicle when he was not in the capacity to drive the same. Admittedly, the accident pertains to the year 1996. The petitioner has suffered protracted trial for more than 13 years. After having considered all the facts on record and particularly when there is no allegation of the petitioner being under influence of liquor or any other substance and also in view of the fact that the petitioner took the injured to Hospital, I am inclined to take a lenient view. As per record, the petitioner has undergone about two months of substantive sentence. 5. In view of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and in addition thereto, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the parents of the victim by way of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the State does not raise any objection to the same. 7. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the Crl. Revision No.485 of 2002 -4- petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and imposition of fine is also affirmed. Apart from the above, the petitioner-accused shall also pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the parents of the victim as compensation within three months from today. In case the petitioner fails to pay the said amount within the stipulated time, the same shall be recovered as per the procedure prescribed in Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be paid to the parents of victim Raj Kumar. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed and the judgment of the Appellate Court, dated 28.2.2002 and that of the trial Court dated 4.8.2000 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) April 16, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No