Criminal Revision No. 956 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 956 of 2002 Date of Decision: 29.3.2010 Kamal Din …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Kamal Din, who has preferred the present revision petition, was named as an accused in case FIR No. 30 dated 15.5.1996, registered at Police Station Pinjore, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, vide its judgment dated 22.11.2001, held the petitioner guilty of an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. A separate order of sentence was passed on 23.11.2001 and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous for a period of six months Criminal Revision No. 956 of 2002 2 under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Thus, the present revision petition. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was driving a truck bearing registration No. HPB-825 in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the accident had occurred and Laxman Singh had died. The FIR, in the present case, was lodged by Mann Singh PW.1, who stated that on 14.5.1996, he was travelling along with deceased Laxman Singh, in a tractor trolly bearing registration No. PBR- 4872. They were coming to their village from Haripur Gurudwara. When the tractor trolley had reached near Charnian Bus Stand, Laxman Singh alighted from it. At that time, the offending truck, which was being driven by the petitioner, came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and had struck against Laxman Singh. He was taken to the Civil Hospital at Pinjore, where the doctor, after giving first aid, had referred him to P.G.I., where he had succumbed to his injuries. PW.1 Mann Singh and PW.3 Yadwinder Singh, being eye witnesses, had supported the prosecution case. Though the eye witness had not known to the accused earlier, the identity of the accused was established by PW.4 Kuldeep Kumar, who was a transporter and owner of the offending truck. He deposed that the petitioner was employed as a driver of the truck, who had caused the accident. Criminal Revision No. 956 of 2002 3 In these circumstances, Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner as both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.1 Mann Singh and PW.3 Yadwinder Singh, corroborated by the evidence of PW.4 Kuldeep Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that he has nothing in his arsenal except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements and is conscious that this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and do re-appraisal of the evidence. He, however, urges that the accident took place in the year 1996. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of mental pain and agony of protracted trial for a long period of about 14 years. The petitioner has also not committed any other such offence before or after the present occurrence and is a sole bread earner of his family. He is also ready and willing to compensate the family of deceased by way of financial assistant, which may provide some solace to the family of deceased Laxman Singh. He has already undergone an actual sentence of three and a half month out of one year's sentence awarded to him. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner be not sent behind the bars, at this stage, and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. I find merit in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Criminal Revision No. 956 of 2002 4 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 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, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 29, 2010 “DK”