CRR No. 473 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 473 of 2002 Date of decision: 8.10.2010 Kirshan Lal ........ Petitioner Versus The State of U.T. Chandigarh ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr. Rajive Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. JORA SINGH, J. This Criminal Revision has bee preferred by Krishan Lal to challenge the judgment dated 12.2.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. By the said judgment, appeal against judgment of conviction dated 24.4.1997 and order of sentence dated 25.4.1997, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, arising out of FIR No. 180 dated 24.7.1992, registered under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station East, Chandigarh, was dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. By the said judgment, petitioner was convicted under CRR No. 473 of 2002 -2- Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to deposit Rs.200/- as fine under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to deposit Rs.300/- as fine under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.7.1992, wireless message was sent from police control room that an accident had taken place in front of House No. 192 Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. On receipt of wireless message SI Prem Chand alongwith other police officials had gone to the place where the occurrence had taken place. Statement of Mohinder Kumar @ Bittu, Ex. PA was recorded to the effect that he is resident of H. No. 192, Sector-20 A, Chandigarh. He is occupying first floor whereas the ground floor is in possession of his cousin brother Devinder Singh. Devinder Singh has two daughters and today his friend, namely, Harpreet Singh R/o H. No. 405, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh, came to see him. At about 6.45 a.m., he alongwith his friend Harpreet Singh was standing in font of their house and they were talking to each other. Daughter of his cousin brother namely Nisha Chadha, aged about 1 year and 9 months came out of the house and was crossing the road to go to the ground in front of house No. 191, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. PB-12A-2371, came. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently and had taken the turn negligently. Truck was struck against Nisha CRR No. 473 of 2002 -3- Chadha. In the accident Nisha Chadha, received multiple injuries and death was on the spot. Truck was stopped at a little distance and on enquiry truck driver disclosed his name as Krishan Lal S/o Hans Raj. Accident was due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. PB-12A-2371 by Krishan Lal. Nish Chadha, was found badly crushed. Statement of Mohinder Kumar, Ex. PA was recorded and after making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Accused was arrested. Truck was taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. Inquest report Ex. P2 was prepared. Dead body was sent to hospital for Post-mortem Examination. Photographer was also arranged. Photographs of the place of occurrence Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-10, were got clicked. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined, PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal, Mechanic, who had conducted the mechanical examination of the truck in question. PW-2 Charanjit Singh, stated that on receiving message regarding the death of Nisha Chadha, in the accident he had gone to the spot. Dead body was identified by him. PW-3 Harpreet Singh, stated that on 24.7.1997, at about 6.45 p.m. he had gone to the house of his friend Mohinder Chadha. He alsongwith Mohinder Chadha, was standing in front of his house. Nisha Chadha aged about 1 year and 9 months came out of the house. She was crossing the road. In the meantime a truck bearing registration No. CRR No. 473 of 2002 -4- PB-12A-2371 came. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently and without blowing horn was struck against Nisha Chadha. Death of Nisha Chadha was in the accident. Truck was stopped at some distance. PW-4 Devinder Chadha, stated that on 24.7.1992, he was present at his shop. At about 7.00 p.m. his brother came to his shop and informed about the death of his daughter in the accident in front of the house. He had gone to the place of occurrence. Dead body of his daughter was lying there. He had identified the dead body. PW-5 Mohinder Kumar @ Bittu, is the complainant and the eye-witness. He has supported the version of Harpreet Singh. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the petitioner denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. After hearing learned APP for the State, learned defence counsel and after going through the record, petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. After arguing for sometime when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then stated that petitioner has already undergone 4 months and 21 days out of the actual sentence. Petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant party. Requested to take lenient view. CRR No. 473 of 2002 -5- Reliance was placed on 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 191 “Sardool Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 776 “Kishan Vs. State of Haryana” and 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 428 “Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana”. Learned State counsel argued that death was of 1 year and 9 months old girl due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner. Lenient view should not be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction but only requested to take lenient view. Mohinder Kumar-complainant/eye-witness on oath stated that he alongwith his friend Harpreet Singh, was present in front of his house. Daughter of his brother namely Nisha Chadha, came out of his house and was crossing the road. In the meantime a truck came. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently and without blowing horn, truck was struck against Nisha Chadha. Death of Nisha Chadha was on the spot due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Harpreet Singh, second eye-witness has supported the version of Mohinder Kumar-complainant by saying that he alongwith Mohinder Kumar-complainant was standing in front of the house. Nisha Chadha, came out of the house and was crossing the road. In the meantime, a truck came. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner and without blowing horn truck was struck against the deceased. Petitioner was arrested on the spot. Truck was also taken into police possession from the spot. Truck was mechanically tested by Kanhaiyalal, Mechanic. There was no defect in the truck. No CRR No. 473 of 2002 -6- suggestion to the witness that there was no accident. Suggestion was given to the witnesses that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner. Accident was in front of the house of the complainant. Presence of the complainant and his friend in front of his house was natural. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by the petitioner. No doubt petitioner is the first offender and was 28 years old at the time of occurrence. Petitioner has already undergone 4 months and 21 days out of the actual sentence. Occurrence is dated 24.7.1992. In Sardool Singh (supra) case was under Section 304-A IPC. Accused suffered protracted trial of 11 years and had undergone 1 month and 20 days. Accused is ordered to be released on probation. ` In Krishan (supra) case was under Section 304-A IPC. Accused was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.800/-. Accused faced the criminal trial for 9m years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (3½ months). In Avtar Singh (supra) case was under Section 304-A/279 IPC. Accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 9 months. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (10 days) in view of protracted trial of 21 years. In the present case, petitioner was the sole bread winner of his family. He was 28 years old and suffered protracted trial of 18 years and has already undergone 4 months and 21 days. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, petitioner is CRR No. 473 of 2002 -7- directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (4 months and 21 days). He is further directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- more as fine within two months before the trial Court, payable to the father of the deceased as compensation. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. October 8, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE