IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 853 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 05, 2010 Chander Bhan ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Gaurav Hooda, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the allegations that on 17.6.1999 at about 2.45 p.m. he drove Haryana Roadways bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it struck against the cycle of Jagmel Singh, who was dragged by the bus upto a distance of 15/16 karams, as a result of which he received injuries to which he lateron succumbed. Vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2001, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam convicted the petitioner under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2003 -2- two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 24.3.2003 by maintaining his conviction and sentences. He then filed the present revision in which he was ordered to be released on bail on 15.9.2003. The prosecution had relied upon the statements of PW1 Prem Singh and PW2 Biram Singh, who had seen the accident taking place. Both of them stated that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result whereof the bus struck against the cycle, which deceased Jagmel Singh was riding at that time. Jagmel Singh was dragged by the bus upto some distance. Lateron, the bus driver stopped the bus and fled away. The testimonies of both the aforementioned witnesses have been believed by the learned Courts below. After perusing the impugned judgments, the Court is of the view that no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1999. He was taken into custody on 24.3.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal and it was only on 15.9.2003 Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2003 -3- that he was ordered to be released on bail. He has, thus, already undergone a substantive sentence of about six months. When the petitioner was heard by the learned trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a poor person. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay adequate amount as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court alongwith the default clause is also maintained. However, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today so as to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation, failing which he shall be required to undergo the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment, as imposed by the learned Courts below. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2003 -4- ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 05, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1