Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2002 Date of Decision: 22.4.2010 Gurbakhshish Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Gurbakshish Singh, who was named as an accused in case FIR No. 68 dated 22.2.1999, registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 18.9.2001, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Vide a separate order, passed by the trial Court on the same day, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, for the offence under Section 279 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2002 2 imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 30.9.2002, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same by upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on the statement made by Som Nath, complainant, brother of the deceased, who stated that on 21.2.1999, he along with Gurdeep Singh and his deceased brother Sat Pal, was going to their village from Patiala. Som Nath and Gurdeep Singh were going on their motorcycle, whereas deceased Sat Pal was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PUG-1078. On the same day, at about 6.30 P.M., the accused/petitioner was the driver of tractor trolley, bearing registration No. PB-13-9017, and was coming at a high speed from Devigarh side. The said tractor trolley had collided with the motorcycle driven by deceased Sat Pal, as a result thereof, he received injuries and was brought to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he succumbed to the same. The trial Court had placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.1 Som Nath and PW.6 Gurdeep Singh. The Appellate Court also found their testimonies to be trustworthy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that he will not in a position to assail the conviction as except to point out Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2002 3 discrepancies, contractions and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses, he has nothing in his arsenal. He further submitted that he is aware of the fact that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. However, learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already undergone mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than about 11 years. He is a sole bread earner of his family and no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. He is ready to compensate the family of deceased Sat Pal, in monetary terms, which may provide some solace. I find merit in the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 22, 2010 “DK”