Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1994 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.8.2009 Hakam Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 65 dated 16.5.1990 registered under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC at Police Station, Kharar, District Mohali, on the allegation that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the infant son of Smt. Karamjit Kaur expired whereas she suffered injuries. Briefly, the facts are that FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Mehar Singh with the allegations that on 16.5.1990, he along with Karamjit Kaur came to Kharar from Village Jakkar Majra for taking medicine as son of Karamjit Kaur was sick. After taking medicines, she was carrying her son in arms when she reached near the chowk of Bus-stand Kharar, CTU Bus No. CHW- 7813 coming from the side of Landran Road, driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently, struck against Karamjit Kaur. She was thrown aside and received injuries. Her son Mahinder Singh was crushed under the wheel of the bus and died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by PW Mehar Singh and several others. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of eye witnesses, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo the following sentence:- Under Section Sentence of rigorous imprisonment Fine In default 279 IPC 3 months 338 IPC 1 year Rs. 500/- 3 months 304-A IPC 1½ years Rs. 500/- 3 months In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and even his request for granting him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959, was also declined. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1994 2 the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences committed under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the person who was accompanying the deceased and the injured and also other eye witness, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial in Courts for about nineteen years and further that he is not keeping good health, he should be extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of 17 days. He further submitted that the complainant has already been awarded compensation in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paul George vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 478, and judgments of this court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, and keeping not good health are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. However, the sentence of fine is converted into compensation of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be deposited in the trial court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall be disbursed to the mother of the deceased. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 3.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge