Criminal Revision No. 2450 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2450 of 2002 Date of Decision: 11.5.2010 Deepak Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, 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 Deepak Kumar son of Mohinder Kumar, who was named as an accused in case FIR No. 57 dated 18.9.1998, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 7.6.2002, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Criminal Revision No. 2450 of 2002 2 six months, for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 26.9.2002, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from one and a half year to one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 279 IPC, from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause were maintained. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. FIR, in the present case, was recorded on the statement Ex.P5, made by PW.2 Karam Singh, wherein he stated that he was an Army personnel and had come on leave for a period of two months. On 18.9.1998 at about 7.00 P.M., he along with his son Gurmit Singh had gone to petrol pump, on his scooter bearing registration No. PJK-8532, to get the tank of the same filled in. When he reached near the PWD Rest House, a truck bearing registration No. PB-11-C-3527 came from the opposite side. Petitioner Deepak Kumar was the driver of the truck, who was known to the complainant earlier. The truck was driven by him at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn, he hit the truck with the scooter of the complainant. Due to the impact, his son Gurmit Singh fell down from the scooter and the rear tyre of the truck ran over him. Gurmit Singh died at the spot. Karam Singh also received many injuries. On the basis of his statement, formal FIR Ex.P6 was registered. Criminal Revision No. 2450 of 2002 3 The above said FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, on 9.3.1999, charged the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The charge stated that on 18.9.1998 at about 7.00 PM., the petitioner was driving the offending truck bearing registration No. PB- 11-C-3527 so rashly and negligently on the public way and caused death of Gurmit Singh by hitting Scooter bearing registration No. PJK- 8532. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW.1 Dr. B.K. Chopra had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Gurmit Singh. According to medical opinion, the cause of death was head injury, hemorrhage and shock. It was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW.2 Karam Singh, complainant, has reiterated as to what was stated in his statement Ex.PE. His testimony was corroborated by PW.3 Rajinder Singh. PW.4 Bhag Singh, an official from the office of the District Transport Officer, proved the registration of the offending truck. PW.5 Piara Singh, Head Constable, submitted a Mechanical Test Report of the offending truck as Ex.P4. PW.6 Gurmail Singh, Sub Inspector, proved various facets of the investigation. Thereafter, the statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded false implication. He further stated that he has no connection with the offending truck. Criminal Revision No. 2450 of 2002 4 DW.1 Parmod Kumar stated that he was having a PCO booth near the place of occurrence and no accident had taken place with the truck. DW.2 Datta Ram and DW.3 Rajesh Kumar deposed on the similar lines. DW.4 Jatinder Shah Singh, Draftsman, proved the scaled site plan Ex.D4/A. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.2 Karam Singh and PW.3 Rajinder Singh. Therefore, he is conscious that the revisional Court is precluded from re- appreciating and re-appraising the evidence of the witnesses. However, he submitted that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1998 and a period of about 12 years is going to elapse. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of mental pain and agony of protracted trial. The petitioner has already undergone five months and two days, out of the one year's sentence, awarded to him. The petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of deceased in monetary terms so that some solace is provided as sending the petitioner behind the bars, at this stage, will not serve any useful purpose. He has not committed such an offence thereafter. Therefore, under these mitigating circumstances, learned counsel prays that sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to already undergone. Accordingly, the 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 Criminal Revision No. 2450 of 2002 5 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 May 11, 2010 “DK”