Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 Date of decision: October 13, 2009 Gurjit Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner Gurjit Singh had been convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, under Sections 279/304-A IPC vide judgment/order dated 22-01-2009 and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to suffer further RI for 15 days under Section 279 IPC and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A IPC. , in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. However, both 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 Additoinal Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sangrur vide judgment dated 6th May, 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. 1249 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 legal heirs of the deceased. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 24-2-2006 Rangjit Singh complainant along with Makhan Singh was coming to Sangrur bye-pass on a scooter. The scooter was being driven by Makhan Singh. Amar Chand, cousin of the complainant was going ahead of them on a Hero Honda motor cycle (bearing registration No. PB-13N-1252). A Tata Tempo 407 (bearing registration No. PB- 10AN/0443) being driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner came and struck the motor cycle of Amar Chand, as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot . The motor cycle was badly damaged. Driver of the tempo came down and disclosed his name Gurjit Singh son of Nachhattar singh, but soon thereafter he fled away from the spot. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused/petitioner was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 3 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 took the plea that his tempo never struck with the motor cycle in question and rather the deceased was in a drunken condition at the time of accident and he fell down from the bike, due to which he died. He He did not produce any witness 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 under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC 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, the sole bread winner in the family and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for many years. As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent, District Jail Sangarur, the petitioner had undergone 2 months & 23 days of substantive sentence as on 29-7-2009 i.e. 5 months & 9 days as of today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already Criminal Revision No. 1249 of 2009 4 undergone. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-(thirty thousand), to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased 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 October 13, 2009. 'ask'