Criminal Revision No. 1615 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1615 of 2009 Date of decision: October 07, 2009 Manjit Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner had been convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar under Sections 304-A, 279,337 IPC vide judgment/order dated 10-05-2008 and was sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence 304-A IPC RI for one year & to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default to suffer further RI for two months. 279 IPC Fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer RI for two months. 337 IPC Fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer RI for two months. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 1-6-2009 dismissed the appeal, upholding conviction & Criminal Revision No. 1615 of 2009 2 sentence awarded by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant 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 petitioners is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to legal heirs of deceased Baljit Kaur. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 27-4-2003 Balkar Singh complainant along with his wife Baljit Kaur (since deceased), son Amarjit Singh and daughter Harinderjot Kaur was going from Wadala Khurd to village Palan on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-17-6617. When they reached near Kartarpur, a truck bearing registration No. HR 38-F-7796 being driven by Manjit Singh petitioner in a rash & negligent manner came from behind, without blowing horn and struck against the said scooter. As a result of the impact, Baljit Kaur fell on the road and was crushed under the tyres of the truck and died at the spot due to injuries suffered in the accident. The complainant and his children also received injuries. The driver (accused/petitioner) ran away from the spot after parking the truck on the road. He was later arrested. After completion of investigation, he was sent up to face trial. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, he was Criminal Revision No. 1615 of 2009 3 charged under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and tendered copy of the postmortem report Exhibit PX. After close of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him which he denied and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any defence evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge and sentenced him, as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings returned by both the courts below. 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 several years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The amount, if paid by the petitioner shall be disbursed to Criminal Revision No. 1615 of 2009 4 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 the aforesaid amount 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 October 07, 2009. 'ask'