Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2002 Date of Decision:August 30, 2010 Netar Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Punjab State ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Monish Gupta, Advocate for Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Netar Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections 279/337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No. 116 of 12.10.1997 registered at Police Station Ropar by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rupnagar on 13.12.2001. Vide order of even date, he was awarded the following sentences:- “Under Section 279 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three months Under Section 337 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three months Under Section 304-A IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-.” All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2002 2 same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed with the modification in the quantum of sentence under Section 304-A IPC thereby reducing the sentence from two years to one year by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar on 19.9.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “2. The brief facts of the case, as advanced by the prosecution are that on 12.10.1997, one Satish Kumar resident of village Haidarwal Tehsil Tohana District Fatehiabad (Haryana) made a statement to the police that on 12.10.1997, at about 9 AM, he along with Jagdeep Singh son of Rumal Singh, Rajesh Kumari alias Sonu daughter of Rumal Singh, Vidhya Devi wife of Rumal Singh, Mandeep Singh son of Rumal Singh, Rajni Devi daughter of Surinder Singh, Kanta Devi resident of Haidarwal Tehsil and District Fathiabad (Haryana) and Bhola resident of Rajabad towards village Makri (Himachal Pradesh) in a jeep No. HR-20- C-6175 in connection with the marriage of Vidya Devi's nephew. Gurdial Singh son of Parkash Singh resident of Rajabad (Haryana) was driving the said jeep. When this jeep had crossed village Malikpur on the main road within the area of District Ropar and had covered a small distance, one Bus of PRTC No. PB-11-H-9812 being driven by Netar Singh son of Ratia resident of village Bagria Police Station Mullanpur District Fathiabad came from the opposite side which was coming from Anandpur Sahib towards Ropar. The driver of the bus was running the bus Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2002 3 in a very rash and negligent speed and it hit against the jeep of its right side. As a result of this hit, Rajesh Kumari alias Sonu of village Baidarwal District Fathiabad died on the spot, while Gurdial Singh driver of the jeep Bhola, Kanta Devi Vidhya Devi Mandeep Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Labh Singh received multiple injuries on their persons. All these persons were taken to the Civil Hospital, Ropar. Later on Gurdial Singh and Labh Chand died in the Hospital, due to the said injuries on 13.10.1997.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the fine,as imposed by the Courts below, have already been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1997. Petitioner has lost his job. The legal representatives of the deceased have received compensation in the claim petitions filed by them before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The petitioner is the only bread earner of the family. The bus driven by the petitioner was not recovered from the spot. In the site plan proved on record by PW9, the spot where the accident had taken place is not depicted. ASI Sukhdev Singh had deposed in his cross- examination that the site plan was not prepared at the spot. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/337/304-A is maintained. However, the sentence qua the Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2002 4 imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sabina ) Judge August 30, 2010 arya