Criminal Revision No. 1792 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1792 of 2004 Date of Decision: 10.3.2010 Balvir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. I.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Balvir Singh son of Inder Singh, who was named as accused in case FIR No. 30 dated 17.4.1999, registered at Police Station Lambi, under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, had held the petitioner guilty for an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for an offence under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous Criminal Revision No. 1792 of 2004 2 imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.3.2001, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, the petitioner had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, had dismissed the appeal by upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence. In the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by Satpal PW.1, who stated that he was a resident of Gidderbaha, had got four sons and was having two retail grocery shops at village Tharajwala. On 14.4.1999, he and his elder son Brij Mohan, after closing the shops, were going to Gidderbaha on their bicycles. They were accompanied by Kuldip Singh son of Ram Chand Arora. His son Brij Mohan was going ahead of them on his bicycle. At about 7.00 P.M., an Enfield Motorcycle bearing Engine No. 68530-X and Chassis No. B-134626-4KX, which was being driven by the petitioner, came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The said motorcycle, which was coming from the wrong side, had hit the bicycle of Brij Mohan, due to which he fell down on the road and had suffered head injuries. Since the condition of Brij Mohan was precarious, he was got admitted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital at Ludhiana. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 14.4.1999 and the report was lodged on 17.4.1999. The delay has been explained by saying that the injured required immediate medical attention, therefore, he was taken to Ludhiana. The injured remained admitted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, at Ludhiana, till 2.5.1999 wherefrom he was got discharged, and on the night intervening Criminal Revision No. 1792 of 2004 3 2/3.5.1999 he died. The head injury suffered by injured Brij Mohan was the cause of his death. The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Sat Pal, complainant, had appeared as PW.1, whereas Kuldip Chand appeared as PW.2. I have perused their testimony. In their cross-examination, no suggestion had been put to them questioning the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle. Mr. I.S. Mann, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has read the statements of PW.1 Sat Pal, complainant, and PW.2 Kuldip Chand in the Court and stated that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of petitioner as both the Courts below had rightly placed implicit reliance on the testimony of these two witnesses. However, learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, accident had taken place in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 11 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any other offence, before or after the registration of the present FIR. He has further submitted that the petitioner was employed in the Police Department and had been dismissed from the service. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is sole bread earner of the family and has already undergone three months of actual sentence, out of the sentence of one year awarded to him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of deceased Brij Mohan. Taking into consideration the above said submissions made Criminal Revision No. 1792 of 2004 4 by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars, at this stage, may not serve any useful purpose, however, if a monetary compensation is awarded to the family of the deceased, it may provide some solace. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to 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 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 present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 10, 2010 “DK”