Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2009 Date of decision: November 05, 2009 Jorawar -Petitioner Versus State of Haryana -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. RD Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner Jorawar had been convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, under Sections 279/337/338/181 IPC vide judgment/order dated 6-10-2007 and vide order dated 8-10-2007 he was sentenced as under:- U/S 279 IPC RI for 3 months. U/S 337 IPC RI for four months. U/S 338 IPC RI for 1½ years. U/s 181 IPC` Fine of Rs.500/-. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rewari vide judgment dated 16-7- 2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 16-8-2003 the police party received a VT message regarding admission of one Sukhvinder in Civil Hospital, Rewari. On reaching the hospital, it revealed that the injured had already been referred to PGI, Rohtak. Thereafter the police party obtained medico legal report of the injured from the PGI. The next day the injured was admitted in Bajaj Nursing Home, Gurgaon, where statement of an eye witness namely Rajender Singh was recorded, wherein it was alleged that on 16-8-2003 around 5-30 PM he was returning to his village on scooter. Sukhwinder was sitting on the pillion seat. When they were going towards village Gadhla after crossing a turn, petitioner came on his scooter bearing NO. HYM 925 in a rash & negligent manner. It was further alleged that the petitioner was having a bottle of liquor in one hand and was driving the scooter with other hand. The petitioner struck his scooter against the scooter of the complainant, as a result of which both i.e. complainant and Sukhwinder fell down and sustained injuries. After causing the accident, accused/petitioner ran away. After completion of investigation, challan against the Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2009 3 accused/petitioner was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Sections 279/337/338/181 IPC, to which he pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is first offender, he is a poor man and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for many years. As per affidavit of Superintendent, District Jail Rewari, the petitioner had undergone 1 months & 19 days of substantive sentence as on 2-9-2009 i.e. 3 months & 22 days as on date. Criminal Revision No. 1825 of 2009 4 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to RI for six months under Section 338 IPC whereas under the remaining Sections it would remain intact. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand), to be disbursed to injured Sukhvinder as compensation. The petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the trial Court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge November 05, 2009. 'ask'