Crl. Revision No.324 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.324 of 2003 Date of decision : 10.02.2010 Ved Parkash .... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Ved Parkash was named as accused in case FIR No.70 dated 8.12.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bathinda under Sections 279/337/338/427/304-A IPC. The trial court vide its judgment dated 18.11.99 found the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for three months under Section 279 IPC, to undergo RI for 6 months under Section 337 IPC and to ungergo RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for Crl. Revision No.324 of 2003 -2- two months. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the conviction, the appellant filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed. Conviction was upheld and sentences were maintained. Prosecution case briefly set out was that on 8.12.1996 two unknown persons were admitted in Civil Hospital, Bathinda having suffered injuries in accident. ASI Ajmer Singh reached Civil Hospital and learnt the names of injured as Tarsem Singh and Jagsir Singh. Jagsir Singh son of Kartar Singh made a statement to ASI Ajmer Singh that he was posted as driver in Military Engineering Services at Bathinda Cantt. Nirmal Singh and Tarsem Singh sons of his brother- in-law and their maternal uncle Jagsir Singh son of Teja Singh, were going on a scooter from Bathinda to Village Kot Bhara. Mithu Singh was following them on another scooter. When they reached village Kot Shamir at about 8.30 PM one bus bearing No.RJ-13P-1201, came on a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus hit the scooter driven by Nirmal Singh. The bus dragged the scooter and Nirmal Singh was found dead. Jagsir Singh and Tarsem Singh were injured. Since the injured and complainant both have a similar name of Jagsir Singh therefore the complainant is mentioned as Jagsir Singh son of Kartar Singh. Sh. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has very fairly stated that in the present case since the injured has appeared in the Court, he is not in a position to assail their testimony especially when two courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Tarsem Singh PW-2 and Jagsir Singh Crl. Revision No.324 of 2003 -3- son of Tara Singh PW-3. Counsel states that except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements, he will not be able to persuade this Court to reappreciate and do reappraisal of the evidence. Counsel has further submitted that he had made statement before this Court, which was recorded on 10.03.2003 to the effect that compensation of Rs.1.65 lacs was paid to the legal heirs of the deceased by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone 1 month and 15 days of his actual sentence. Occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1996. Petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony on protracted trial for more than 13 years. Counsel further submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence. He has further prayed that still accused is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased, I find merit in the contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioner, as sending the petitioner behind the bars may not serve any useful purpose, but payment of compensation may provide some solace to the family of deceased. Furthermore it cannot be ignored that petitioner is in corridors of courts from last 13 years. Taking into consideration the factors mentioned above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, enhanced amount of fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of the sentence shall Crl. Revision No.324 of 2003 -4- not accrue to the petitioner. The same shall be disbursed by the trial Court to the legal heirs of the deceased. Revision is disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 10-02-2010 JUDGE manju