Criminal Revision No. 988 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 988 of 1998 Date of Decision: 25.1.2010 Ashok Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Ashok Kumar son of Sohan Lal, resident of Shahbad, District Kurukshetra, was tried in case FIR No. 219 dated 15.7.1991, registered at Police Station Shahbad, under Sections 337, and 304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and order dated 10.11.1997 held petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, Criminal Revision No. 988 of 1998 2 appellant filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and had dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction and maintained the sentence. The lower Appellate Court reproduced translated version of the FIR. For facility of reference, FIR is also reproduced hereunder:- “I am working as Senior Chemist for the last 2½ years in Markanda Banaspati Ghee Mill, Shahbad. Today at about 1.30, I and Shri D.L. Sharma, Chief Chemist went to Prince Hotel for taking meals and we sat down on the table and chairs near the counter in the hall. In the same hall, A.K. Madkan, XEN, P.W.D. (B&R) was also sitting and I came to know him afterwards. Ashok Kumar, owner of the Prince Hotel was also sitting on another chair in the said hall. Hira, was the name by which the bearer was being called, was serving meals etc. The moment we sat down on the chairs, A.K. Madkan, was telling the owner that the roof of the hall was of temporary nature and the girder was much long and that the weight of the roof was very much. On this D.L. Sharma went out for urinating. The roof of the hall came down with a big bang suddenly. I was sitting in a corner, therefore, I was under little debris. I received minor injuries. Knowing this, the vehicles of the police also reached the spot and many other persons also came there. These Criminal Revision No. 988 of 1998 3 persons with courage etc. took us out and I was brought to the hospital and admitted there. The owner of the Prince Hotel, Ashok Kumar, had also been buried under the debris and he was also taken out. Shri A.K. Madkan also was buried under the roof of the hall which had fallen down and he died because he was under much debris. This occurrence has taken place because the owner of the hotel, Ashok Kumar, was negligent and the roof was not got constructed in a proper way. Action be taken”. A bare perusal of the FIR reveal that petitioner was owner of a restaurant and had constructed a shed and while the customer had come to take food, roof fell and he died. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner also suffered injuries due to fall of the roof. Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly admitted that there is no scope for interference in the present revision petition as two Courts below, after appreciating the evidence, have recorded the conviction of petitioner. Mr. Gill further stated that there is no legal issue available to canvass before this Court. He has further contended that except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements, there is nothing in his arsenal. No patent illegality and irregularity in the judgments of two Courts below have been pointed out. However, counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the present case occurrence had taken place in the month of July 1991. Petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of about 19 years. Criminal Revision No. 988 of 1998 4 Petitioner has already undergone 15 days of his actual sentence and he is suffering from cancer. Counsel further stated that petitioner is a peaceful law abiding citizen. Before the present occurrence and thereafter, he committed no offence. It is further prayed that petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased. Petitioner is stated to have undergone about 15 days of his actual sentence. I find merit in the above said submissions advanced for reduction of the sentence. Taking these contentions into consideration and the fact that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner and under the advise of builder, he had constructed the building and had also suffered injuries during the course. This Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone and petitioner is fastened with the fine of Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from receipt of certified copy of order and the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased. In case amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 25, 2010 “DK”