Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 Date of Decision: August 18, 2010 Ashok Benjamin .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.MS Lobana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 12.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 9.1.2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) convicting the petitioner was upheld and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 -2- year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the Appellate Court judgment, are as under: “Complainant Prem Singh had retired as Block Primary Education Officer and was residing in the village; that on 10.5.1999 the complainant was to bring household articles and was proceeding, in that connection to village Mullanpur Garibdass on his bicycle; that at about 7.45 a.m. complainant Prem Singh reached near the river bridge of village Parol; that Harpreet Singh s/o Gurmeet Singh, grandson of brother of the complainant, namely, Madho Singh was proceeding ahead of the complainant on his scooter bearing No.CH01-T-6494, towards Chandigarh, when Ambassador Car bearing No.CH- 01-N-4568 came from the opposite side at a very fast speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter of Harpreet Singh; that as a resultant impact of the accident, Harpreet Singh received injuries and instantaneously died at the spot; that the name of the driver of the offending car was revealed to be accused Ashok Benjamin; that the complainant leaving Karnail Singh who reached there to guard the dead body was proceeding towards the Police Station when he met Balhar Singh, ASI, from Police Station Kurali at Bus Stop Parol and got recorded his statement Ex.PA regarding the accident as summarised above, which was signed by the complainant and attested by Investigating Officer Balhar Singh, ASI, who sent the same with the endorsement, Ex.PA/1 to the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR No.36 dated 10.5.1999 (Ex.PA/2) u/s 279 and 304-A IPC was registered by MHC Harbhajan Singh and the investigation Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 -3- commenced. The Investigating Officer then proceeded to the spot and prepared inquest report Ex.PW/B regarding the dead body of Harpreet Singh which was identified by Karnail Singh and Mohan Singh whose statements were recorded. Investigating Officer took in possession scooter and the car involved in the accident, in the damaged condition vide recovery memos Ex.PB and Ex.PC respectively, which were attested by Karnail Singh and Mohan Singh. The documents of the Ambassador Car i.e. registration certificate, insurance and driving licence in the name of accused Ashok Benjamin were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PD which was attested by the witnesses. Investigating Officer also prepared rough site plan Ex.PW4/A depicting the place of accident and indicating the respective position of vehicles at the spot. The place of accident was got photographed and subsequently photographs and negatives were taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW3/A. Post mortem on the dead body was got conducted and copy of post mortem report Ex.PW5/A was obtained, whereby the cause of death of Harpreet Singh was stated to be due to shock and injury to the brain, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The vehicles involved in the accident were got mechanically tested from the mechanic and the Exhibits PW4/C and PW4/D were obtained. Accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, accused was challaned.” 3. The accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, viz., complainant Prem Singh as PW1; Karnail Singh as PW2; Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 -4- Gurjeet Singh, Photographer as PW3; ASI Balhar Singh as PW4 and Dr.Anju as PW5. 5. Statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as narrated above in the outset. 7. Accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 28.3.2003, and the revision petition was admitted on 21.2.2006. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 10.5.1999. Thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for more than 11 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for about 16 days. He has not misused the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 11 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 -5- opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.25,000/-, an amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the dependent/legal heirs of the deceased and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 13. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 12.3.2003 and that of the Trial Court dated 9.1.2002 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 18, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No Crl. Revision No.652 of 2003 -6-