Crl.Rev.No.1185 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1185 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29 - 5 - 2009 Sucha Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Sucha Singh. He was nominated as accused in case FIR No.199 dated 25.12.2001 registered at Police Station Makhu under Sections 304-A, 279 IPC. Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo imprisonment for two months. Petitioner was also convicted and sentenced under Section 279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine, he had to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the Crl.Rev.No.1185 of 2009 [2] conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 304-A IPC from 1½ years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. In the present case, FIR was lodged on the statement Ex.PA made by Sukhbir Singh. He stated that he is resident of village Nadohar and do agriculture work. About five years ago, he along with his wife Balbir Kaur and cousin Kuldip Singh were going on his motorcycle which was purchased two moths ago, from village Nadohar to village Cheema. When they reached near Village Peer Mohammad, then from back side one Canter meant for milk supply came. The driver of the Canter was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, due to which Balbir Kaur died at the spot and Kuldip Singh suffered injuries. In the FIR name of the driver was mentioned as Sucha Singh son of Mohinder Singh. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 25.12.2001 at 11.30 A.M. Report to this effect was lodged at the police station at 1.30 P.M. and case was also registered on the same day. Prosecution examined PW-1 Raj Kumar who proved that Canter which caused the accident was owned by M/s Friends Enterprises. PW-2 Dr.Inderjit Singh deposed regarding admission of Kuldip Singh in the hospital. PW-3 Sukhbir Singh complainant appeared in the Court and reiterated the version given in the FIR. Kuldip Singh was examined as PW- 4 to corroborate the testimony of Sukhbir Singh. Dr.Harjinder Singh Sidhu conducted autopsy on the dead body of Balbir Kaur. ASI Bikram Singh proved various facets of investigation. PW-7 Balwinder Singh photographed the place of occurrence and proved six photographs and their negatives. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating evidence was put to him. He pleaded false Crl.Rev.No.1185 of 2009 [3] implication. No evidence was adduced in defence. Notice of motion was issued. Record was requisitioned. Mr.Brar appearing for the petitioner has read the cross- examination of PW-3 Sukhbir Singh and PW-4 Kuldip Singh. PW-3 Sukhbir Singh has stated in cross-examination that he has seen the accused first time in the Court but at the same time stated that he has seen the accused at the place of accident. Counsel has further read cross- examination of PW-4 Kuldip Singh wherein he said that he identify the accused who was present in Court, as the one who was driving the Canter. Kuldip Singh further stated that he had not seen the accused running away from the spot. Counsel having picked up the stray line from the cross- examination has stated that prosecution has failed to prove identity of the accused as the one who caused the accident. Counsel stated that no test identification parade was carried by the prosecution. This Court is conscious of the fact that two Courts below after having appreciated the evidence have come to the conclusion that it is the petitioner who caused the death of Balbir Kaur. Re-appraisal and re- appreciation of evidence is not permissible to the revisional Court. Even otherwise, if the testimony of two witnesses is read as a whole, there is no doubt that petitioner was named in the FIR which was recorded very promptly. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was not the one who had caused the accident. Counsel for the petitioner has also made an alternative submission. He stated that in the present case occurrence took place in the year 2001 and the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of about 8 years. Counsel state that petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family Crl.Rev.No.1185 of 2009 [4] and has large family to support. Petitioner has not committed any offence prior to the registration of the present case or thereafter. Therefore, he state that sentence be adequately reduced. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in the order of sentence, the revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 29, 2009. JUDGE RC