IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1049 of 2004 Date of decision: 15th February, 2010 Nirmal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Nirmal Singh son of Kapoor Singh was named as accused in case FIR No.115 dated 25.05.1994 registered at Police Station Ambala City under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Jai Pasrkash complainant had made a statement Ex.PB to SI Nathu Ram. Jai Parkash stated that he was working in Civil Defence Office at Ambala City as a Peon. On 25th May, 1994 at about 7.00 a.m. he was going to his office. When he reached near the railway bridge, he saw Surinder Kumar son of Kanwar Singh coming from Manav Chowk on his bicycle. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. HNE 6302, which was driven by Nirmal Singh, was coming from the back side at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus had not blown any horn and the bus hit bicycle of Surinder Kumar. Surinder Kumar fell on the road, suffered injury on the head and died at the spot. The driver of the Criminal Revision No.1049 of 2004 bus ran away from the spot after parking the vehicle at some distance. In the FIR, it was stated that later-on name of the driver was learnt as Nirmal Singh. On 22nd November, 1994, the petitioner was charged by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Raghbir Singh HC appeared as PW-1. He had submitted mechanical test report Ex.PA pertaining to bus No.HNE 6302. Ramesh Sharma, another eye witness appeared as PW-2. Jai Parkash complainant appeared as PW-3. Kanwar Singh father of the complainant appeared as PW-4 and stated that he learnt that his son Surinder Kumar had died due to accident. Harish Kumar, Photographer appeared as PW-5 and proved photographs Ex.P1 and P2 and their negatives as Ex.P3 and P4. Dr.Dinesh Goel PW-6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surinder Kumar, a child of 12 years. Satish Kumar PW-7 was member of the police party and was an attesting witness to recovery memo Ex.PW7/A, whereby cycle of the deceased was taken into possession. He had also attested memo Ex.PW7/B, whereby the offending bus bearing No.HNE 6302 was taken into possession. Ved Parkash Duty Inspector appeared as PW-8 and proved duty roster. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. 2 Criminal Revision No.1049 of 2004 Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC and had also sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court upheld the conviction, however reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. Petitioner was taken into custody on 23rd April, 2004 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 25th May, 2004. It has been submitted that petitioner has already undergone an actual sentence of one month and two days out of six months’ rigorous imprisonment. Mr. Paramjit Singh Sullar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that even though in the FIR Jai Parkash stated that he had later-on learnt the name of the accused as Nirmal Singh, he will not be able to join issue regarding the identity of the accused, as from the duty roster, it has come in evidence that the petitioner was posted as driver of the offending bus. However, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that period of about 16 years is going to elapse and petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is further submitted that petitioner has not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence and the petitioner is also ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased Surinder Kumar. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars after 16 3 Criminal Revision No.1049 of 2004 years may not serve any useful purpose, however, some compensation ought to be paid to the family of the deceased. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, however, sentence of fine of Rs.35,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the family of the deceased. However, in case fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 15, 2010 rps 4