Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2010 Amrik Singh ..............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL,J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Amrik Singh accused against the judgment/order of sentence dated 16.4.2004 rendered by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur vide which she convicted and sentenced the said accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2005 (O&M) 2 payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days with a further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The facts in brief are that on 22.10.2000 at about 5.30 P.M. Mehal Singh deceased son of Jagir Singh alongwith his wife Sheela Bai and son Manjit Singh aged about one year resident of village Bhamba Haji were going on a moped being driven by Mehal Singh towards their village. Their moped was being followed by Piara Singh alongwith Balkar Singh. At the bus stand of Alufke, Mehal Singh made an attempt to overtake the jeep which was already lying parked there, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No. PB-05-2176 driven by accused Amrik Singh at a very high speed and without blowing horn came from the opposite direction and struck against the moped of Mehal Singh, who alongwith the riders fell down and sustained injuries. Mehal Singh and Sheela Bai became unconscious. All the three injured persons were removed to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. On the way to Civil Hospital, Mehal Singh succumbed to the injuries. The case was registered. On 23.10.2000 the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A of I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2005 (O&M) 3 After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by the courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the both the Courts below. Consequently, the conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 2000 and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 1 month and 6 days of the actual sentence. The petitioner while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (1 month 6 days) while maintaining the fine as well its default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2005 (O&M) 4 revision fails and is dismissed. Since the revision petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE May 13, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No