Crl. Revision No.1427 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1427 of 2004 Date of Decision: 15 - 2 - 2010 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner v. U.T. Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ashok Kumar son of Gugan Ram was named as accused in case FIR No.259 dated 23.8.1992 registered at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Pyare Lal PW2 made statement Ex.PA to SI Baldev Singh PW8. Pyare Lal stated that he was working as Volunteer in Chandigarh Home Guard and was residing in the house of Vice Chancellor, Punjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh. He was on duty along with three other officials on the road dividing Sectors 18 and 21 from 2.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M. At that time one Sikh Gentleman who was on his scooter bearing registration No.CH-01-B-5010, came from the crossing of Sectors 19,18,20 Crl. Revision No.1427 of 2004 [2] and 21 was going towards Bus Stand. From the back side of the scooter, a Delux Bus bearing registration No.HR-037728 came. The bus was driven in a very rash and negligent manner and it hit the scooter from back side. Due to collusion scooter fell down on the road. The scooter was dragged by the bus at some distance and right wheel of the bus had crossed over the head of scooter driver, as a result of which scooter driver died at the spot. The name of the driver of the bus was later known as Ashok Kumar son of Gugan Ram. Sukhchain Singh PW1 identified the dead body of the deceased and name of the deceased was disclosed as Tirlochan Singh. Complainant Pyare Lal PW2 was the eye witness. PW3 Devinder Mohan, Mechanic had submitted test report Ex.PW3/A. He had mechanically tested the scooter and the bus. PW4 Maya Ram, Clerk from the Estate Office, Chandigarh proved registration certificate of the scooter. Dr.S.K.Sharma PW5 had conducted the post-mortem. SI Mewa Singh PW6, Constable Randhir Singh PW7 and SI Baldev Singh PW8 had proved various facets of investigation. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. In defence petitioner examined Sat Narain DW1 who stated that he was posted as Conductor of the bus in question and on that day, no accident had taken place and petitioner has been falsely implicated. Impliedly petitioner admitted that he was posted as driver of the offending bus, as conductor himself proved the duty of the petitioner on the offending bus. The trial Court placed implicit reliance on the testimony of Pyare Lal PW2 and convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections Crl. Revision No.1427 of 2004 [3] 279/304-A IPC. The trial Court awarded two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sections 304-A IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of sentence, petitioner filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC. Petitioner in the present case was taken into custody on 10.7.2004. He was ordered to be released on bail on 30.9.2004. Therefore, the petitioner had undergone 2 months and 20 days of his actual sentence out of the sentence of one year awarded by the lower Appellate Court. Mr.C.B.Goel, counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner. However, he will pray to this Court that occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1992. Petitioner had already suffered a protracted trial of 18 years. Therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars will serve no useful purpose. It is further submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence and petitioner is ready and willing to compensate family of the deceased. This Court is of the view that 18 years is too long period for which petitioner has been in the corridors of the Court. Petitioner had already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Taking these factors into consideration, the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone as grant of compensation shall provide solace to the family of the Crl. Revision No.1427 of 2004 [4] deceased. Thus, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already. Ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from receipt of certified copy of order, failing which petitioner shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in default. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed to the family of the deceased. Subject to above modification in the order of sentence, the revision petition stand disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 15, 2010. JUDGE RC