Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2002 Date of decision: January 28, 2010 Anand .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Dinesh Kumar Bagga, Advocate for Mr Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S .MANN,J. (Oral): The petitioner was tried by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2001, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC and imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 5.10.2002. He is now before this Court by way of a revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The F.I.R was registered on the basis of a statement made by Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2002 -2- Raja Ram, wherein he stated that on 12.7.1998 he alongwith his wife Santosh Devi (since deceased) and one Ram Kishan, resident of village Janaula was coming from Pataudi to their village on foot by moving on kacha portion of the road. When they reached near the Shiv Mandir, a jeep bearing registration No.HR-26-D-6516 came from the side of Pataudi. When the jeep stopped, the passengers sitting therein got down and boarded a bus. Thereafter, the jeep driver while driving the jeep rashly and negligently took a sudden turn at a fast speed and dashed the same against Santosh Devi, as a result whereof, Santosh Devi fell down at the spot and died. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses. Out of them, PW-1 Raja Ram and PW-2 Ram Kishan deposed about the ocular account. The investigation part of the case was brought before the Court through the testimonies of PW-3 H.C.Ram Singh, PW-5 H.C. Jagdish Rai and PW-7 ASI Bhoop Singh. Dr Vivesh Kumar PW-6 deposed about the post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Santosh Kumari, whereas PW-4 Azad Kumar proved the photographs, which he took after reaching the spot on 12.7.1998. The petitioner had denied the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness. Both the Courts below, after going through the evidence, especially, the statements of PW-1 Raja Ram and PW-2 Ram Kishan came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner, who was rash and negligent in driving the jeep, as a result of which, Santosh Kumari received injuries, when she was hit by the jeep. Their evidence was amply corroborated by Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2002 -3- the medical evidence. During the investigation of the case, sufficient evidence was collected by the police so as to connect the petitioner with the accident. The only flaw which remained in the case was that PW-3 H.C. Ram Singh proved the report Ex.PW-3/A, which was in respect of jeep No.HR-26-F-4039 and not in respect of the offending jeep bearing registration No.HR-26-D-6516. That by itself was not sufficient to doubt the prosecution case. As per recovery memo Ex.PW5/A, jeep No.HR-26-D- 6516 was taken into possession from the spot and it was, thereafter, taken on sapurdari by the owner under the Court orders. The petitioner has been facing the agony of the criminal prosecution since July 1998. After being arrested in the case, he was released on bail soon thereafter. He was again taken into custody on 5.10.2002 upon the dismissal of his appeal by the lower Appellate Court. It was only on 13.12.2002 when the sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court that he was ordered to be released on bail. He has, thus, already undergone, a substantive sentence of about 2½ months. When the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he stated his age to be 21 years. However, that fact was not accepted by the lower Appellate Court in view of the fact that in the identification memo of the accused relied upon by the prosecution, the age of the petitioner was shown to be 25 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now produced a photo copy of the certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as '26.01.1976'. In view of the same, the petitioner was 22½ years of age on the date of the occurrence, which took place on 12.7.1998. The petitioner is stated to be a poor person and first offender, besides sole bread winner for his family. Taking the Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2002 -4- aforementioned factors into consideration, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year's rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentence of imprisonment of two months imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC does not call for any interference and the same is, accordingly, maintained. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC is maintained. However, his sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Sentence awarded under Section 279 IPC is maintained. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. But for the modification in the sentence, as indicated above, the revision is dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) January 28, 2010 JUDGE Pds.