Crl. Revision No. 463 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 463 of 2006 Date of decision: April 27, 2011 Didar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. PS Paul, DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner/accused, Didar Singh @ Dara, has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC recorded by JMIC, Jalandhar, and upheld in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The facts, in brief, are that on 3.9.2001 Surjit Singh, complainant (PW-2) and his mother Bachnni deceased had come from their village Mokhe to Bhogpur on scooter No. PB-08W-9405 to meet his maternal uncle Tarsem Lal. After meeting Tarsem Lal, they started back on the same scooter, which was being driven by the complainant and the deceased was sitting on the pillion seat thereof. They were being followed by Tarsem Lal, who was coming on his own scooter. When they reached in front of the Punjab National Bank, Bhogpur, and were going on the G.T. Crl. Revision No. 463 of 2006 2 Road, the accused came driving the truck No. PB-08K-8955 from the back side at a very fast speed and without blowing any horn and by taking the same on the wrong side, struck that in his scooter, as a result of which Bachni deceased fell down and came under the truck. He himself fell on the left hand side. The accused stopped the truck at a distance of about 100 yards and escaped. The deceased was being removed to the hospital, but succumbed to her injuries on the way. He gave information to his relatives, who came to the spot and after leaving them to guard the dead body, he was proceeding to the police station for lodging the report, when ASI Kulwant Singh met him on the turning of the road leading to the Railway Station. At that place, he made a statement Ex. PA before the ASI, who, after making his endorsement Ex. PA/1 on the the same, sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded against the accused under the aforesaid sections. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PC with correct marginal notes. Sandeep Kumar, Photographer (PW-5) was called to the spot, who took the photographs. The ASI prepared the inquest report Ex. PB in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post-mortem. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sarita Sood (PW-3), who found ante-mortem injuries on the same and gave her opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage, which was result of those injuries and the same were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The truck was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex. PD/1, whereas the scooter, its registration certificate and the driving licence of the complainant were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PD. On 10.9.2001 both these vehicles were mechanically tested by Kishan Kumar, Mechanic Crl. Revision No. 463 of 2006 3 (PW-8), who gave his reports in writing. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Kulwant Singh, ASI (PW-1), Surjit Singh, complainant (PW-2), Dr. Sarita Sood, (PW-3), Tarsem Lal (PW-4), Sandeep Kumar (PW-5), Ranu Bala (PW-6), Harbans Lal, HC (PW-7), Kishan Kumar (PW-8), Kulwant Singh, ASI (PW-9), and Jarnail Singh (PW-10). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his false implication. He stated that no accident took place on account of his rash and negligent driving. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. After recording the conviction of the accused under Section 279 and 304-A IPC, the JMIC sentenced him as under:- Section Sentence Fine In default 304-A IPC One year ` 1,000/- Two months 279 IPC Three months ` 200/- Fifteen days I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused did not assail the findings of conviction so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He submitted that the accused stood the agony of protracted trial for about 10 years and has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than two months. He is ready to compensate the legal Crl. Revision No. 463 of 2006 4 representatives of the deceased and the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. The facts and circumstances of the case are such that the interest of justice will be met in case the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused is reduced to the period already undergone, as he has undertaken to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased on account of her death. As per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel, he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of two months and four days. The sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the condition that he shall pay `75,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. That compensation is to be paid/deposited in the trial court within three months of this order, failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Records of the lower courts be returned forthwith. April 27, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Note:- Whether to be referred to reporter No