Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2002 Date of Decision: 23.3.2010 Charanjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The instant revision petition has been preferred by Charanjit Singh son of Tara Singh, who was named as an accused in case FIR No. 104 dated 20.10.1998, registered at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, vide its judgment dated 2.11.2000, held the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, for offence under Section 279 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2002 2 two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 3.6.2002. The FIR, in the present case, was lodged on the statement made by Hardev Singh, on 20.10.1998, wherein he stated that he was a resident of Dhariwal Dona and was doing the work of labourer. It was further stated that his uncle Pal Singh went to Dubai about three-four months ago and in that respect, they intended to devote a carton of liquor at Gurudwara Baba Kahan Dass, Kala Sanghian. On the fateful day, the complainant along with his brother Gurmail Singh alias Gela, aged about 23/24 years, and some other persons went to the said Gurudwara on the tractor bearing registration No. PND 3018, which was driven by Charanjit Singh alias Charna son of Taru. After paying obeisance, they boarded the same tractor trolley for returning back to their village. Charanjit Singh was driving the tractor trolley. On the way, he took the tractor trolley towards village Sukhani. He had taken the tractor trolley on rent. They asked as to why he was travelling them to village Sukhani as they had hired his tractor trolley for going to the said Gurudwara from their village and back, on which hot words were exchanged. He threw away a sum of Rs.100/- before them and on their insistence he proceeded towards village Dhaliwal Dona for leaving them. From village Sukhani, he started driving the tractor trolley at a Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2002 3 high speed in a rash and negligent manner, on which Manga son of Bhajna and Gurmail Singh, brother of the complainant, asked him to slow down the speed but he did not pay any heed. He took the tractor trolley on a pucca road. Again Gurmail Singh asked the petitioner to stop the tractor trolley but he refused to do so. On striking of his elbow, Gurmail Singh, brother of the complainant, fell down and suffered injuries in his head and ears as the rear tyre of the tractor ran over him. It was about 4.30 P.M. They took Gurmail Singh to Civil Hospital for treatment in tractor trolley on the way he succumbed to his injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.2 Hardev Singh and PW.3 Prem Singh, therefore, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of petitioner. He has also nothing in his arsenal except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements and is conscious that this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. In this situation, learned counsel contended that occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1998; a period of about 12 years is going to elapse and the petitioner has suffered a lot of mental pain and agony of protracted trial. He further contended that the petitioner has not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence and is a sole bread earner of his family. Therefore, due to these mitigating circumstances, he submitted that in the interest of justice, petitioner be not sent behind the bars, at this stage, but he is prepared to compensate, in monetary terms, the family of deceased Gurmail Singh as it may provide some Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2002 4 solace. I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the 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 March 23, 2010 “DK”