Criminal Revision No. 1231 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1231 of 2009 Date of decision: November 03, 2009 Harwinder Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. RK Vashishat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner had been convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC vide judgment/order dated 20-8-2007 and was sentenced as under:- U/S 304-A IPC RI for 1 ½ years & to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. U/S 337 IPC RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to further undergo RI for 20 days. U/S 279 IPC RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to further undergo RI for 20 days U/s 338 IPC` RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further undergo RI for one month. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana vide judgment dated 17-4- 2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision No. 1231 of 2009 2 Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 16-11-2003 Hans Raj complainant got recorded his statement with the police to the effect that on 13.11.2003 he had gone to Kharar in connection with some urgent work. While he was coming back to Ludhiana on his scooter, his nephew Arvind Kumar and his friend Rajesh Bansal were also coming behind him on another scooter. Rajesh Bansal was driving the scooter while his nephew was sitting on the pillion seat. When they were about 2/3 kilometers behind Samrala, a tempo bearing registration No. PB-11V-1766 being driven by the petitioner came at a very high speed in a rash & negligent manner and hit the scooter of his nephew, as a result of the accident, Rajesh Bansal and Arvind Kumar fell down and received serious injuries. They were admitted in the hospital. Later Arvind Kumar died. The scooter of the injured was also damaged. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused/petitioner was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not-guilty and Criminal Revision No. 1231 of 2009 3 claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and tendered into evidence copy of the postmortem report Exhibit P1. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is first offender, he is a poor man and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for many years. As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail Ludhiana, the petitioner had undergone 4 months & 14 days of substantive sentence as on 17-8-2009. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to RI for one year under Criminal Revision No. 1231 of 2009 4 Section 304-A IPC whereas under the remaining Sections it would remain intact. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand), to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the trial Court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge November 03, 2009. 'ask'