Criminal Revision No.2421 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2421 of 2002 Date of decision 08.10.2010. Sanjay Kumar ...... Petitioner. versus U.T.Chandigarh ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaila, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory. K.C.PURI, J. Sanjay Kumar-petitioner has filed the present revision petition for setting aside the order dated 13.7.2002 vide which his appeal against the judgment dated 22.11.2001 passed by Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh was dismissed. The prosecution story lies in the narrow compass is that on 4.12.1997 an accident had taken place between truck and scooter on the dividing road of Sectors 33-45 and one person had died. The investigating agency reached at the spot and found that truck bearing registration No.PB- 10-Q-9860 and scooter bearing registration No.CHT-9678 had met with an accident and a dead body of young boy was lying at the spot. A motorcycle Criminal Revision No.2421 of 2002 2 bearing registration No.PB-11-6443 was also involved in the accident. Rachhpal Kumar made statement Ex.PA before SI-Hardit Singh stating that he was returning home after seeing his friend at Burail. He was coming on motor cycle No. B-11-6443. At about 10-30p.m. He reached the light point of sectors 33-45 dividing road and that one scooter was coming from the opposite direction which was being driven by Arun Mehta. Another boy aged about 20-21 was pillion rider on the scooter. Scooterist and his companion were coming on the left side of the road. Truck bearing registration No. PB-10-Q-9860 came from backside of scooter. It was coming from the side from which other was coming. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently and hit on the backside of the scooter. Resultantly, both the vehicles fell down. Boy who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter fell towards the side of the truck and was crushed by the truck. Driver of the truck stopped it at some distance from the place of incident. He stopped the truck their and himself ran away. He and Arun Mehta scooterist received injuries. The boy who was sitting on the scooter with Arun Mehta died at the spot. After completion of the necessary investigation challan against the accused was presented. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to him. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Rachhpal Kumar (PW-1), Deepinder Singh (PW-2), Dr.Shivani Gupta (PW-3), Criminal Revision No.2421 of 2002 3 Arvind Jindal (PW-4), Lokesh Kumar (PW-5) and Arun Mehta (PW-6) and closed its evidence. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him to which he denied and pleaded his false implication. In defence, the accused examined Paramjit Singh as DW-1 and Hardit Singh as DW-2. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC, whereas acquitted the accused for offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and order, dated 22.11.2001 passed by Ms.Gurvinder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh the accused has preferred the appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 13.7.2002. Still feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the report of the mechanic, it is clear that back side of the scooter and truck have not been damaged and these vehicles damaged only from the front side and as such prosecution story is doubtful. Criminal Revision No.2421 of 2002 4 I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. As per allegations of the prosecution the truck in question struck from the back side and in these circumstances the front portion is most likely to be damaged as a truck is a heavy vehicle. Moreover, both the Courts below have dealt in detail whole aspect of the case and returned a definite finding that it is on account of the rash and negligent driving of the revisionist the deceased has died. The finding of both the Courts below are corroborated by ocular evidence as well as medical evidence and I do not see any infirmity. The next limb of arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as per custody certificate the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of six months and two days out of the substantive sentence of one year. It is further contended that occurrence relates to 1997. The petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of about six months and two days. So, the prayer has been made for reduction of sentence. I have carefully considered the said submission and find force in that submission. The occurrence relates to the year 1997 i.e. about 13 years back. As per conviction slip, the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of six months and two days and is stated to be on bail since January 2003, it would not be in the consonance of justice to send him in custody after he remained on bail for more than seven years. The ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. six months and two days. However, the Criminal Revision No.2421 of 2002 5 sentence of fine stands enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The said amount shall be paid within two months in the trial Court failing which the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for three months. With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE October 08, 2010. sv.