Crl. Rev. No.1251 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No1251 of 2002 Date of Decision: 23 - 3 - 2010 Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Gurcharan Singh was named as an accused in case FIR No.405 dated 29.11.1997 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304-A IPC. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala held the petitioner guilty vide judgment dated 17.03.2001 of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and sentenced him as under:- U/S 279 IPC R.I. for 3 months U/S 337 IPC R.I. for 3 months U/S 338 IPC R.I. for 6 months U/S 304-A IPC R.I. for 1½ years All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl. Rev. No.1251 of 2002 [2] Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court while upholding the order of conviction and maintaining the sentence, dismissed the appeal. “The facts, in brief, are that on 28.11.1997, Raminder Singh complainant along with his brother Gurmit Singh @ Sweety, Jagraj Ram, his wife Kanta Devi and Khazan Singh @ Bablu were coming back from Village Chuharpur to Patiala in a jeep bearing registration No.HR-24-C- 4069. Gurmit Singh was driving the jeep. At about 6.10 P.M., when they were at a distance of about one kilometer from Village Wazidpur towards Patiala, a Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No.PAT-1264 which was towing another vehicle came from the opposite side. The vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and it was bubbling. Swaraj Mazda collided with the jeep, as a result of which the passengers sitting in the jeep received the injuries and Gurmit Singh died at the spot. It is not disputed that driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW6 Khazan Singh, PW7 Jagraj Singh and PW8 Kanta Rani. Jagraj Singh, Kanta Rani and Khazan Singh had also suffered injuries in the occurrence. Both the Courts below held that their testimonies inspire confidence and were trust-worthy witnesses. The version divulged by them was accepted and the defence version projected was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has raised following three arguments for consideration of this Court:- (a) From the perusal of mechanical test report, it is apparent that no visible harm was caused to the Swaraj Mazda, therefore, it cannot be inferred that there was a head on collusion. Crl. Rev. No.1251 of 2002 [3] (b) That Swaraj Mazda was stationary and the jeep had struck in it. (c) That the occurrence pertained to the year 1997, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner should be suitably reduced. First two arguments are being taken up together. Both the arguments are mutually exclusive and contradictory, therefore, one argument will oust the other. If a vehicle is standing and the other running vehicle hits the standing vehicle, then by the impact there will be number of dents on the front portion of the standing vehicle. Therefore, the defence version projected by counsel for the petitioner is to be rejected outrightly. Secondly, it has come in the evidence that vehicular traffic on the main road was heavy. At that time petitioner was towing another vehicle. This in itself constitutes a rash and negligent act. Such an exercise is to be undertaken at the time when the roads are not frequented by heavy traffic. This should have been done by the petitioner in early hours of the morning or at any other time. Khazan Singh, Jagraj Singh and Kanta Rani had also suffered the injuries in the occurrence. Thus, their presence was stamped. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot. Both the Courts below have relied upon the version given by the aforesaid three witnesses. This Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction will not tread on the path of re- appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence. However, the third argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner can be considered. It is stated that petitioner had actually undergone 3½ months out of the sentence awarded to him. It is stated that accident had taken place in the year 1997. At the time of framing of the charge, petitioner was aged about 40 years. The charge was framed on Crl. Rev. No.1251 of 2002 [4] 3.6.1998. Petitioner is now aged about 52 years. Petitioner has a large family to support and he is the sole bread earner of the family. Petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is also ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased in monetary terms. After taking into consideration the age, antecedents and conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone, as, at this stage, by sending the petitioner behind the bars, will serve no purpose. However, if some monetary compensation is granted to the family of the deceased, it will provide some solace. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the fine is not deposited, no benefit of reduction in sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With this modification in the order of sentence, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 23, 2010 JUDGE RC