Criminal Revision No.695 of 2002(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.695 of 2002(O&M) Decided on : February 04, 2010 Nirmal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Additional Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioner Nirmal Singh (herein referred as `petitioner') through the instant petition has challenged the judgment dated 1.4.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 3.9.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A; for nine months under Section 338 and six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that on 24.7.1997, Criminal Revision No.695 of 2002(O&M) [2] complainant Channan Singh s/o Shiv Singh r/o Lohgarh (herein referred as `the complainant') was standing at Dhamala Bus Stop at Nalagarh Road and was waiting for a bus. At about 3.00 PM, Ram Singh (deceased) while driving scooter bearing Reg.No.HR03A-0080 came from the side of Nalagarh and Dayal Singh (injured) was the pillion rider. In the meantime, the accused while driving the truck bearing Reg.No.CHW-4254 was seen coming from the opposite side i.e. Pinjore side rashly and negligently and it struck against the scooter. Resultantly, both; Ram Singh and Dayal Singh fell down and became unconscious. Besides, the complainant, one Channan Singh of village Manakpur also witnessed the occurrence. Ram Singh died on the spot, while Dayal Singh was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, case was registered and the investigation was initiated. The completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The accused was charged for the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its version, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the matter. However, the trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. At the very outset, counsel for the accused has fairly conceded that no sufficient loop-holes have been left in the evidence, so as to create doubt over the testimonies of the witnesses and to take a view in favour of Criminal Revision No.695 of 2002(O&M) [3] the accused regarding his conviction. Even otherwise, both; Channan Singh - complainant (PW2) and another Channan Singh (PW3), while appearing in the witness box have consistently stated that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the accused. Their testimonies stand corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the testimony of Nafe Singh (PW4), who proved the mechanical reports of both the vehicles. The photographs as proved by Ramesh Kumar (PW8) also speak to the volumes that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the accused. The accused has been duly identified by the eye witnesses. Counsel for the accused has confined his argument qua the quantum of sentence, while submitting that though the accused was 34 years old at the time of the accident, and now he is about 50 years old; he has wife and children to maintain, and there is none-else to look after the family, except the accused, therefore, a lenient view be taken. Having considered the contentions as set up by the petitioner, it is noticed that the occurrence in the instant case took place way back on 24.7.1997; the accused did not run away from the spot after the accident; he has a big family consisting of mother, wife and the children to support. Nothing has been pointed out as to if he has earlier committed any such offence and he has fairly offered to compensate the family of the deceased. It may further be added that he has already undergone one month and two days of the substantive sentence. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded against the accused is reduced and Criminal Revision No.695 of 2002(O&M) [4] the heirs of the deceased Ram Singh are awarded compensation. In the wake of the above discussion, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, reducing it to that already undergone by him, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner to the heirs of deceased Ram Singh as compensation within three months from today, failing which, the petition shall be treated as having been dismissed in toto. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula for compliance. February 04, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE