Crl.Revision No. 383 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.383 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Rattan Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Rattan Singh filed this revision to challenge the judgment dated 9.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in FIR No.128 dated 16.5.2002 under Sections 279/427/304-A IPC, PS Sadar, Hoshiarpur. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.6.2005 passed by CJM, Hoshiarpur, was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.5.2002, ASI Charan Singh along with police party on receipt of ruqa from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, regarding death of injured had gone to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, but no one was present there, who had witnessed the occurrence. On 16.5.2002, ASI Charan Singh again had gone to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where Parvinder Singh met him. Parvinder Singh reported to the police that he is employee of Express Transport. Harvinder Singh (deceased) was also employee of the same transport. On 15.5.2002, Harvinder Singh came to his residence because they had night duty. After dinner, on scooter at about 9.15 PM, they started from their residence and at Crl.Revision No. 383 of 2010 2 about 9.30 PM, they were near ITI, then sighted Truck No.HR-37-5060, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner. Without blowing horn, truck was struck against their vehicle. Harvinder Singh fell down and received multiple injuries. Truck driver tried to escape but was apprehended. On enquiry, truck driver disclosed his name as Rattan Singh. Injured was shifted to hospital by Harjit Singh, where he was declared dead. Intimation regarding the death was sent to the residence of the deceased. Inquest report was prepared. Postmortem examination was got conducted and after postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Petitioner was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined number of witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for fifteen days under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of trial Court, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the file. Crl.Revision No. 383 of 2010 3 After arguing for some time when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that as per judgment of trial Court, petitioner was directed to undergo RI for one year but as per file, petitioner has already undergone sentence. Requested to dispose of the petition. Learned State counsel argued that as per order of the trial Court, petitioner was directed to undergo RI for one year but as per file, petitioner remained in custody for about one year, four months and twenty three days. Undisputedly, petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Maximum sentence under Section 304-A IPC was one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for fifteen days. According to the file, petitioner is in custody because there is no order of suspension of sentence. While disposing of the appeal by the Sessions Court, petitioner was taken into custody. That means, till today, petitioner has undergone one year, four months and twenty three days. Eye witness appeared in Court and stated that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner, who was apprehended on the spot. Immediately after the occurrence, injured was shifted to the hospital by PW3 Harjit Singh, but he was declared dead. Occurrence was witnessed by Parvinder Singh. Petitioner was named in the FIR. Vehicle number and name of driver were also disclosed to the police. After the accident, petitioner was apprehended on the spot. So, no reason to differ with the finding of the first Appellate Court and the same is upheld. Crl.Revision No. 383 of 2010 4 Petitioner was truck driver. He belongs to a poor family. As per file, he remained in custody for about one year, four months and twenty three days. For the reasons recorded above, petition without merit is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to be released from jail forthwith in FIR No. 128 dated 16.5.2002 under Sections 279/427/304-A IPC, PS Sadar, Hoshiarpur, if not wanted in any other case. 2.5.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE