Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1998 Date of Decision: 8.8.2008 Jai Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred by Jai Singh who has been nominated as accused in case FIR No. 604 dated 3.11.1989 registered at Police Station Ambala City under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Shanti Devi lodged the FIR and stated that she is a resident of Kail Majri and was residing there along with his family with his brother in Ambala City. Her husband had died in the year 1996. She was doing labour work. From the last 6-7 years, she is working in the firm namely M/s C.Lal and Company. On 2.11.1989 she had gone to attend her work at 8.00 A.M. and at 5.00 P.M. she along with her friend Indira Sharma was returning towards her house. When they reached at G.T. Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1998 2 Road in order to cross the road towards Baldev Nagar, at that time, one tractor trolley bearing registration No. HRX-9334 came at a very high speed in a careless manner. They were hit by the rear side of the trolley and both fell down on the road. This happened near Gurudwara Manji Sahib. It is further stated that she and Indira suffered injuries. Amar Nath, brother of the complainant and one Charan Singh reached at the place of occurrence and took them to Ambala City for medical aid. The Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan after reaching at the place of occurrence. It was learnt that tractor trolley was being driven by petitioner Jai Singh. On 8.11.1989 Shanti Devi had succumbed to the injuries. The FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner was charged for the offences and prosecution examined its witnesses. Amar Nath appeared as PW.1. He stated that he learnt at about 5.15 P.M. that accident had taken place. He stated that he reached at the spot after the occurrence had taken place. He resiled from his testimony and was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor. PW.2 Hans Raj had attested the inquest proceedings and had identified the dead body of Shanti Devi. PW.3 Indira Sharma, injured, had appeared and deposed that the offending tractor trolley was being driven by the petitioner. PW.4 Dr. Anand Kumar Jindal had conducted the post mortem of Shanti Devi. PW.5 Raghbir Singh had inspected the tractor trolley. PW.6 Dr. L.N. Garg, on 2.11.1989, medicolegally examined Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1998 3 Shanti Devi and Indira Sharma. PW.7 Ram Mehar, Constable, had photographed the tractor trolley and proved the negatives thereof also. PW.8 Harnek Singh, Inspector, had proved the FIR. PW.9 Sadhu Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the peculiar feature is that the statement of Shanti Devi was recorded and on basis of the same FIR was registered and the same is her dying declaration. The dying declaration has been corroborated by the testimony of PW.3 Indira Sharma. Taking this feature of the case into consideration, counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not be able to assail the prosecution case as two Courts below have held the petitioner to be guilty. Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that he shall confine his arguments regarding reduction in sentence. He stated that in the present case pertains to year 1989. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 19 years. It has been further stated that the petitioner was taken into custody on 22.1.1998 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 5.2.1998. Then it has been submitted that the petitioner has undergone for more than 15 days including the time which was consumed for bailing him out of the case. It is further stated that by sending the petitioner behind the bars after 19 years, no useful purpose will be served especially when the petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and was not a previous convict and in the last 19 years, the Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1998 4 petitioner has committed no offence. It has been further submitted that some compensation be awarded to the family of the deceased by imposing a fine. The Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of 19 years and during this period he has committed no offence, the sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone provided family of the deceased is compensated. Accordingly, a fine of Rs.35,000/- is imposed under Section 304-A IPC which shall be disbursed to the family of the deceased Shanti Devi. Taking this fact into consideration, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone subject to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- as a fine. In case no fine is deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner and he shall undergo the entire sentence. With these modifications in the sentence, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 8, 2008 “DK”