Crl. Rev. No.3039 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3039 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 Nooru ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for committing an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days and fifteen days, respectively vide order dated 12.03.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order Crl. Rev. No.3039 of 2010 2 convicting him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide his order dated 11.10.2010. Hence, the present revision. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2000, the complainant Farukh Ahmad came to the police station and got his statement recorded to the effect that today i.e on 09.09.2000 at about 2.00 p.m., he was present at Gohana Chowk for his personal work. After some time, a bus came from Nuh side and Hakmuddin son of Juhuru alighted down from the said bus and started to go towards village Rithad. In the meantime, a dumper being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit Hakmuddin straight. Hakmuddin became unconscious at the spot and he over powered the driver of the dumper. The registration number of the dumper was HR-29GA-0437 and driver disclosed his name as Nuru son of Samela. He alongwith Gulam Sarver took Hakmuddin to CH Nuh where the doctors referred Hakmuddin to GH Gurgaon but in the midway Hakmuddin died. The prosecution in his evidence examined Farukh Ahmad as PW-1, Juhru as PW2, Dr. M.S. Ranga as PW-3, Gulam Sarver as PW-4, Dr. Bhuvnesh Arora as PW5 and ASI Jasram as PW-6. PW-1 Juhru is an eye-witness. He is also the complainant. He has categorically supported the prosecution version. The complainant over powered the driver of the dumper who disclosed his name as Nooru son of Samela. Nooru is the present petitioner. There is absolutely no evidence and not even an iota of suggestion that the present petitioner was not driving the said vehicle. The petitioner was caught on the spot and the vehicle was also produced by its owner before the police. As such, there is absolutely no other conclusion but the fact that the said incident occurred when the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing death of the deceased. Crl. Rev. No.3039 of 2010 3 Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit and the order convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is upheld. Moreover, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner also did not press the case on merits and notice of motion was issued only qua the sentence. The accused petitioner is stated to be the only sole bread earner of his family. It is stated that there is no body else to look after his family. He is facing trial for the past more than 10 years and has already suffered a lot. At the same time, adequate punishment is required to be given. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interest of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from two years to one year under Section 304-A of the IPC subject to the payment of ` 35,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The other sentence shall remain same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit except for the modification in the sentence as above. Disposed of in the abovesaid terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 08.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet