IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 350 of 1996 Date of Decision : March 19, 2010 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. J.B.S.Gill, Advocate Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 304-A IPC on the allegations that on 2.7.1990 he drove Maruti Van in a rash and negligent manner and struck Constable Jarnail Singh, who suffered injuries and, lateron, died as a result thereof. Vide judgment and order dated 6.4.1995, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing an appeal but the same was dismissed Crl. Revision No. 350 of 1996 -2- by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 16.4.1996. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 12.6.1996 when he was granted the concession of bail. The consistent case of SPO Joginder Singh, who was examined as PW6 and SPO Malkiat Singh, who appeared before the trial Court as PW7 was that on 2.7.1990 they alongwith some other police officials, including Constable Jarnail Singh were returning to Police Post, Cholang after getting the liquor vends closed. A Maruti Van came from Jalandhar side. It did not bear any registration number nor its driver blew the horn. Infact, its driver was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. He came on the wrong side of the road and struck Constable Jarnail Singh, who fell on the left hand side of the kucha road. When the Van was stopped, its driver disclosed his identity as Raj Kumar son of Gian Chand, resident of Mukerian. SPO Joginder Singh then stopped one private truck and shifted Constable Jarnail Singh to Civil Hospital, Dasuya for medical treatment where he succumbed to his injuries. Though in the photographs Exs.P5 to P8, which have been proved by PW4 Tirath Ram, it is shown that the Van was lying parked on the left side of the road yet it was the prosecution case that the Van driven by the petitioner went to the wrong side of the road and hit Constable Jarnail Singh, who was dragged to some distance. Therefore, Crl. Revision No. 350 of 1996 -3- it cannot be said that the Van was being driven on its correct side. According to the chit Ex.PC sent by PW1 Dr.Gurmail Singh, one unknown person wearing police uniform was brought by Pritam Singh driver of a private truck and the victim died in the hospital at 11.15 p.m. At that time, Constable Dhirt Ram No.673, Police Station, Hajipur, was also there. Fact remains that Constable Jarnail Singh belonged to Police Post Cholang under the jurisdiction of Police Station Tanda, whereas Constable Dhirt Ram was posted at Police Station Hajipur. Said Constable Dhirt Ram could not be in a position to identify the police official, who had been brought to the hospital. As per the testimony of SPO Joginder Singh, he had stopped one private truck and shifted the victim to the hospital. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the accused regarding the fact that Constable Jarnail Singh had died under mysterious circumstances. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner was recorded by the learned trial Court to be 18 years of age at the time of framing of charge. The occurrence had taken place about 20 years ago. The present revision has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 13½ years. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view Crl. Revision No. 350 of 1996 -4- that sentence of two years' imposed upon the petitioner is on the higher side. The same needs to be adequately reduced. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC is maintained. However, his substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause, is maintained. Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 19, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1