Criminal Revision No.2024 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION No.2024 of 2004 Decided on : February 24, 2010 Sohan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Umesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The accused – petitioner Sohan Singh (herein referred as `the accused') was tried for causing death of Gurcharanjit Singh by his rash and negligent act, while driving Truck bearing Reg.No.PB-32B-7137. Consequently, vide judgment dated 7.7.2003, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Balachaur, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal was also dismissed on 27.8.2004, as such this revision petition. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 15.3.2000, at about 11.00 AM, Jasbir Singh along with Amar Singh and another person was standing near the GT Road at Kathgarh. In the meantime, Gurcharanjit Criminal Revision No.2024 of 2004(O&M) [2] Singh (deceased), who was known to Jasbir Singh came on a Motor Cycle, followed by a truck bearing Reg.No.PB-32B-7137 (herein referred as the offending truck). When the truck driver tried to overtake the motor cycle, in the meanwhile a bus also came from the Balachaur side, but the accused while driving the truck rashly and negligently struck the left front portion of his truck against the motor cycle of Gurcharanjit Singh, as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot. The truck was followed and it was got stopped and its driver told his name as Sohan Singh s/o Malkiat Singh r/o Vill.Wazidpur – the accused. The FIR was registered against him and the case was investigated. The completion of the investigation was followed by the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was accordingly charged under Section 304-A/279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The records transpire that the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence. PW1 Jasbir Singh and PW4 Amar Singh, who are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have deposed consistently Criminal Revision No.2024 of 2004(O&M) [3] about the time, place and the manner of the accident. Both of them have identified the accused and also disclosed his name. PW2 Jaswant Singh, PW5 HC Daljit Singh and PW8 ASI Ravinder Singh are the police witnesses, who have proved the police proceedings, leaving no lacunae to suspect the prosecution version. PW5 Om Parkash is the photographer, who proved the photographs taken at the spot, which also strengthen the version as given by the eye-witnesses. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. As such, the conviction recorded by both the courts below is upheld. Faced with the situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court on the quantum of sentence and has prayed for extending some leniency. The occurrence in this case took place in March, 2000; the accused has already undergone about four months of the substantive sentence and has also suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last about one decade. That apart, no bad antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on record, so as to dub him as habitual offender and he is also ready to compensate the heirs of the deceased. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by the accused, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that the reduction in the sentence of imprisonment is subject to payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- by the accused Sohan Singh, to the legal heirs of the deceased Gurcharanjit Singh, Criminal Revision No.2024 of 2004(O&M) [4] within three months from today, failing which the petition be deemed to have been dismissed without any alteration in the sentence. The 24th Day of February, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) 'gian' JUDGE