IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 518 of 2005 Date of decision: November 29, 2010 Mohar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J Challenge made in this petition is to the judgment dated 21.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that complainant Subhash (herein referred as, 'the complainant') disclosed to ASI Anshi Lal (PW1) that on 21.7.1998, Inderjit and Ranjit had come to see him on a motor cycle make “Honda”. They went to make a telephone call at one STD booth, whereas, he was standing on the Rewari road. When Inderjit and Ranjit were returning towards him, in the meantime, the accused while driving his jeep bearing registration No.HR35-8618 in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the motor cycle of Inderjit, as a result, both Inderjit and Ranjit fell down and received injuries. The accused then struck his jeep against one four wheeler bearing registration No. HR35G-0171 parked near the gate of bus stand Narnaul. Thereafter, the accused drove the jeep towards the shops opposite the bus stand and stuck against the shops of Kailash Chand and Suresh and rehries of Vijay Singh, Badbnu Ram and Ranjit etc. resultantly the fruits, vegetables, sweets etc. lying on the rehries were Criminal Revision No. 518 of 2005 -2- *** scattered. The injured were removed to the Government Hospital, Narnaul. However, Inderjit succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a formal FIR was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Anshi Lal (PW1), Dr. Ravi Sudan Sharma (PW2), C. Rakesh Kumar (PW3), Mange Ram (PW4), Ram Bilas (PW5), Sher Singh (PW6), Sheonarain (PW7), Dinesh Kumar Photographer (PW8), Kartar Singh (PW9), Suresh Kumar (PW10), Kailash Chand (PW11), Suresh (PW12), Ranjit (PW13) and Subhash (PW14). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prosecution story hinges on the testimonies of Ranjit (PW13) and Subhash (PW14). Both are quite consistent in their testimonies regarding the time, place and the manner in which the accident took place. It has come on record that the accused himself had suffered injuries and that he was arrested at the spot. He was under the influence of liquor. He first of all struck against the motor cycle of Inderjit and causd his death and injured Ranjit. The accused while further driving the jeep struck against one four wheeler bearing registration NO.HR35G-0171 parked near the gate of the bus stand, Narnaul and thereafter he took the jeep towards the shops opposite bus stand Narnaul and struck against the shops of Kailash Chand, Suresh and rehries of Vijay Singh, Badlu Ram and Ranjit etc. The fruits, vegetables and sweets etc. lying on the rehries were scattered. The identity of the accused is not disputed. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, without assailing the judgment of conviction, has only urged that the accused is now 65 years old and has undergone two months and eleven days of the substantive sentence, therefore, some lenient view may be taken as he Criminal Revision No. 518 of 2005 -3- *** has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the courts. Taking stock of the situation, this court is of the view that the act of the accused was such a heinous in nature that he killed one person and injured the other. He not only struck his jeep against the shops of Kailash Chand and Suresh and also damaged many rehries. As such, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, no leniency could be extended on the quantum of sentence. The sentence already appears to have been awarded on the lower side. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. November 29, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge