Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2000 Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 Gajjan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Gajjan Singh son of Buta Singh. Gajjan Singh, petitioner, was tried in case FIR No. 73 dated 18.6.1995 registered at Police Station Sahnewal, under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Trial Court had convicted the accused/petitioner under Section 279 and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He was further convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2000 2 Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who maintained the conviction and sentence. Briefly stated, statement of Parkash Singh, complainant was recorded on 18.6.1995 by Kuldip Singh, Sub Inspector. Parkash Singh was stated to be Sarpanch of village Lato Dana. In the statement, it was stated that on 15.6.1995 at about 5.30 P.M. complainant Parkash Singh along with Dilbagh Singh, Sarpanch of village Laton Joga and Bachhitar Singh, Member Panchayat of village Laton Joga, was present at the bus stand of village Laton Dana and were talking to each other and at that time one truck bearing No. PUG-8296 was parked at one edge of the road as the same was out of order. Ashok Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, was coming from village Laton Dana on his cycle, when a bus of Chandigarh Depot came and the same was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The said bus collided with the cycle of Ashok Kumar. The bus had also hit the parked truck. Ashok Kumar received injuries on his head. The registration number of the bus was CH-01-G-5172. The bus had to come from Patti to Chandigarh. The present petitioner Gajjan Singh was found to be driver of the vehicle. Ashok Kumar was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared dead. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner appeared in the trial Court and was charged for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Prosecution examined Dilbagh Singh and Parkash Singh as PW.1 and PW.3, respectively. Both claimed themselves to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2000 3 Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW.2, had proved the medical evidence regarding the injuries and death of Ashok Kumar. Other witnesses were also examined regarding link evidence and investigation. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW.7 Harinder Singh, who was then posted as Works Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, as the witness had stated on oath that as per the duty roster Gajjan Singh was driver of the offending bus. The offending bus was taken into police custody from the spot. Before the trial Court, defence counsel had relied upon contradictions between the testimony of PW.1 Dilbagh Singh and PW.3 Parkash Singh. The Court relied upon the testimony of witnesses to hold that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The Court also noticed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had held petitioner to be responsible for the death of Ashok Kumar due to rash and negligent driving. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court while affirming the findings of the trial Court had also taken into consideration the fact that as per the testimony of PW.7 Harinder Singh, the petitioner was posted as Driver in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.6.1995, Gajjan Singh was on duty at bus No. CH-01-G-5172, which was impounded by the police from the spot and the bus had caused accident. The Appellate Court further found the testimony of Dilbagh Singh and Parkash Singh, PW.1 and PW.3, respectively, credible to Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2000 4 hold that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner. A perusal of the two judgments show that there is no infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the two Courts below. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 15.6.1995. Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of about 14 years. Petitioner was taken into custody by the Appellate Court on 6.12.2000. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 13.2.2001. Thus, petitioner has undergone for more than three months out of actual sentence of one year. Taking into consideration protracted trial and that the right of speedy trial vest in the petitioner, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- so that the family of deceased Ashok Kumar may be compensated. The trial Court shall call upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine. The petitioner shall be granted sufficient time by the trial Court for depositing the amount of fine. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Ashok Kumar. However, in case the amount of enhanced fine is not deposited then the petitioner shall not be entitled to benefit of reduction in sentence. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 16, 2009 “DK”