Criminal Revision No.2157 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2157 of 2011 Decided on 30. 11.2011. Balbir Singh .... Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present : Mr.Gurcharan Dass Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, A. A. G. Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 18.8.2011 passed by Shri Rajinder Aggarwal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali) vide which, the appeal preferred by the accused- revisionist against the judgment dated 23.4.2010 passed by Mrs. Kiran Bala, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi holding him guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one week under Section 279 Criminal Revision No.2157 of 2011 2 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three days week under Section 337 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one week under Section 338 IPC , was dismissed. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.10.2001 HC-Baldev Singh along with some other police officials had gone to PGI, Chandigarh on receipt of information regarding admission of Kusam Lata wife of Satpal Sharma and Mohit Sharma with accidental injuries on their persons in the said hospital. On that day, Kusam Lata injured was declared unfit to make the statement, whereas injured Mohit Sharma was child aged about two and half years, at the time of accident. On 25.10.2011, complainant Satpal Sharma made a statement to HC Baldev Singh to the effect that on 22.10.2011 he along with his wife Kusam Lata and son Mohit Sharma was returning from village Raipur Rani to his village Bhakharpur on scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-K-4944. When his scooter had reached in Bhakharpur Chowk at about 2.30p.m., a truck bearing registration No.HYO-4965 came from the side of Mubarkpur at the fast speed being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. He had turned the truck all of sudden and had hit the truck into his scooter and due to this impact he was over thrown from the scooter. The scooter had got entangled into the front wheels of the truck. His wife Kusam Lata received injuries on her both legs, chest and other parts of the body. His son Mohit also Criminal Revision No.2157 of 2011 3 received injuries and his scooter was also damaged. The matter was reported to the police. Investigation of the case was commenced. The accused was arrested. Statements of the Pws were recorded. After completion of necessary investigation challan against the accused was presented in the Court. 3. On appearance of the accused in the Court, copies of the documents were supplied to the accused under rules. 4. Finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged under Sections 279, 337 and338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge examined Satpal Sharma complainant (PW-1), Kusam Lata (PW-2), Joginder Singh Mechanic (PW-3), HC Baldev Singh (PW-4), Pushwinder Kumar Mechanic (PW-5), Balwinder Singh Photographer (PW-6), Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-7) and again marked as PW-7 Dr.Sudesh and the evidence of prosecution was closed. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence were put to him which he denied and pleaded his innocence. He however, did not opt to lead evidence in defence. 7. After perusal of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, as narrated above. 8. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said judgment, the accused- appellant has preferred the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment Criminal Revision No.2157 of 2011 4 dated 18.8.2011 dismissed the appeal of the appellant by reducing the sentence imposed under Section 338 IPC from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for eight months only. 9. Still dis-satisfied with both the judgments dated 18.8.2011 and 23.4.2010, the present revision petition has been filed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case with their assistance. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 12. The appeal of the appellant was decided on 18.8.2011 and since then he is stated to be in custody. So, he has undergone incarceration for a period of more than three months and eleven days out of the substantive sentence of eight months under Section 338 IPC. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authorities in Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 441, and an unreported case of this Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Punjab Criminal Revision No.2309 of 2007 decided on 15.2.2008. In these authorities the sentence has been reduced where the victim family has been duly compensated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or the sentence has been reduced after enhancing the the sentence of fine considerably. 14. As per certified copy of the Award dated 15.09.2003, placed on record today, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala has granted compensation in respect of injuries on the persons of the injured. 15. So, in these circumstances, sentence stands reduced to the Criminal Revision No.2157 of 2011 5 period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. On realization, the said amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the injured under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 16. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. November 30, 2011 (K.C. PURI) sv JUDGE