Criminal Revision No.1282 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1282 of 1999 Date of Decision:15.07.2009 Manohar Lal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.10.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby he dismissed the appeal with the observations that the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months under Section 304-A of IPC while maintaining the fine imposed by the learned trial Court and also reduced the sentence to six months under Section 279 of IPC while maintaining the fine inflicted by the learned trial Court. The first appeal was directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 15.9.1998 rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari vide which he convicted and sentenced Manohar Lal accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of the same to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC and in Criminal Revision No.1282 of 1999 -2- default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days with a further direction that sentences shall run concurrently. The facts in brief are that Sardar Singh complainant, a Jeep Driver on 29.6.1988 took Balraj, Banwari and Jagan Nath in his Jeep for attending the marriage party at Bareli Kalan. When they reached ahead of Bus Stand of Village Buaroli at about 3:15 P.M, a Jeep bearing registration No. HNM-647 being driven by Siri Chand son of Ganpat was moving in front of their Jeep. Ranbir, Sandeep Kumar, Sheonath, Om Kar, Kirti Kumar, Bhim Singh were travelling in the said jeep. Meanwhile, a bus bearing registration No.HNM-1867 of Haryana Roadways being driven rashly and negligently by the accused came at a high speed and dashed against Jeep bearing registration No.HNM-647. As a result of impact, the Jeep overturned to the left side and fell into ditches. Sardar Singh stopped his own Jeep and extricated the injured passengers travelling in Jeep bearing No.HNM-647. The injured Om Parkash succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Injured Siri Chand, Ranbir, Sandeep, Sheo Nath, Kirti Kumar, Hem Singh, Omkar were taken to Civil Hospital for their treatment. On the basis of the statement of Sardar Singh, the case was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the Accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After examining seven witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He did not adduce any Criminal Revision No.1282 of 1999 -3- evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. Realising that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings recorded by both the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On scrutinising and analysing the evidence on record with due care and caution, it transpires that no holes can be picked in the findings recorded by the aforesaid Court. Sequelly, the conviction is upheld. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a misericordious submission that the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the already undergone as the petitioner has retired from service and he is a patient of tuberculosis since long. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. This incidence is more than 20 years old. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1988. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in his judgment dated 5.10.1999 has also mentioned that the accused is 50 years old, he has retired from service, he is suffering from tuberculosis and he was under treatment at Narnaul and is now under treatment at Alwar. It means that now the petitioner is above 60 years of age. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone one month Criminal Revision No.1282 of 1999 -4- of the actual sentence. Taking into consideration the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (one month). With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition is dismissed. July 15, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE