Crl. Revision No.1758 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1758 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2010 Jagir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioner Jagir Singh had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali, under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced as under:- U/S 279 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. U/S 337 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days. U/S 338 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence dated 3rd January, 2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Mohali. The Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Crl. Revision No.1758 of 2010 2 Nagar (Mohali), however, partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence of the petitioner under Section 338 IPC from one year to six months, vide order dated June 04, 2010. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He states that he is conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 30th August, 2001 at about 6.30 P.M., complainant Amarjit Singh, who was lying admitted in Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, made a statement to ASI Gurcharan Singh to the effect that on 28th August, 2001 he alongwith his wife Harwinder Kaur, son Simarjit Singh and daughter Chanpreet Kaur was returning to Village Jhampur from village Majri, District Ambala on his scooter bearing registration No. CHT-5390. When they were a little short of the liquor vend of village Tangori, a truck came from the opposite side at a Crl. Revision No.1758 of 2010 3 very high speed being driven by the petitioner in a negligent manner. On seeing the said truck, he had taken his scooter towards the extreme left side of the road, but the truck driver (the petitioner herein) brought the truck on the wrong side of the road and hit the same into his scooter. On account of the said impact, all of them had fallen down. He received injuries on his right leg, left thigh, left shoulder and chin. His wife Harwinder Kaur also received injuries on her right cheek and right wrist etc. and his daughter Chanpreet Kaur also received some injuries. The accident had taken place at 6.30 P.M. The accused/petitioner had stopped his truck after covering some distance. The registration number of the said truck was HNX-9960 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused/petitioner while driving the truck. A large number of persons had gathered at the spot and some of them shifted them to Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No.66 dated 30.8.2001 was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record Crl. Revision No.1758 of 2010 4 was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) vide order dated 4th June, 2010, modified the sentence under Section 338 IPC and reduced the same from one year to six months. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate court also did not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and only reduced sentence of the petitioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the petitioner is a poor person and main bread winner of his family and not a previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Crl. Revision No.1758 of 2010 5 Learned State counsel has placed on record reply by way of affidavit of Capt. S.P. Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, according to which the petitioner has undergone custody of 01 month and 09 days as on 13.7.2010 i.e. 02 months and 14 days till today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him but the petitioner is burdened with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid as compensation to the complainant/ injured Amarjit Singh. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 17, 2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No