Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 1999 Date of Decision: 8.8.2008 Azad Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred by Azad Singh. He was convicted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 337 IPC and further to undergo for one year under Section 304-A IPC. It was ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had also filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, on 7.9.1999. In the present case, on 21.8.1988 complainant Garib Singh got recorded a statement that he is a driver on bus No.PJG-4091 of Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 1999 2 Punjab Roadways Pathankot Depot and on that day at 3.00 A.M. he proceeded from Delhi to Pathankot and Ram Lal Conductor No. T-82 was the Conductor of the bus. At 5.00 A.M. when the bus reached in front of Tehsil Panipat, a truck bearing NO. DEG- 3350, which was loaded with gas cylinders came from Karnal side at a very high speed. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently and the truck after breaking the foot path, hit the bus and that due to the accident he suffered injuries on his right elbow. At that time, driver of the truck disclosed his name as Azad Singh son of Lal Chand. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck Cleaner of the truck had died and was lying dead in the truck itself. The FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner was charged for the offences and prosecution examined its witnesses. PW.1 Dr.A.K.Garg had medicolegally examined Garib Singh on 21.6.1988. On the same day he also examined the petitioner. PW.2 Chand Kishore is the Photographer who had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence and also proved the negatives thereof. PW.3 Sham Lal, Conductor of the bus, is the eye witness and he supported the prosecution version. PW.4 Garib Singh is the complainant and driver of the bus. He had also supported the prosecution case. PW.5 Jai Narain had mechanically examined both the vehicles and proved his reports Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, respectively. PW.6 Ram Niwas, Head Constable, is the witness to the Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 1999 3 recovery memo Ex.PW3/A vide which the truck was taken into possession by the police. PW.7 Dr.H.S.Randhawa had conducted the post mortem on the body of Satish Kumar deceased and proved the postmortem report Ex.PW7/A. PW.8 Tarsem Lal, Inspector, had taken the bus on sapurdari. PW.9 Ram Pal had taken the truck No. DEG-3350 on sapurdari vide sapurdarinama Ex.PW9/A and he had also taken the dead body of deceases Satish Kumar vide receipt Ex.PW9/B. Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He refuted the allegations levelled by the prosecution. Before the trial Court, the petitioner had averred that he is the only bread earner of his family and has old parents and five minor children. He further stated that he is not a previous convict. The two Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW.3 Sham Lal and PW.4 Garib Singh, complainant, that the petitioner was driving the offending truck rashly and negligently. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he will not be able to assail the prosecution case as two Courts below have held the petitioner to be guilty. He further stated that he will confine his arguments only for reduction of sentence of the petitioner. He further stated that in the present case the occurrence had taken place on 21.8.1988 and the petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts for the last 20 years. He further stated that by now the children of the petitioner are Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 1999 4 of marriageable age and in case he is sent behind the bars at this stage the matrimonial prospects of his children will be affected. He further stated that in the last 20 years the petitioner has committed no other offence and is leading the life of honest and peaceful citizen. Therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage will serve no useful purpose. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased in monetary terms. According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has undergone one month and 22 days out of his actual sentence. Taking into consideration protracted trial, the conduct and antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that family of the deceased can be compensated, it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone subject to payment of Rs.35,000/- as cost, which shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased Satish Kumar. Accordingly, on deposit of Rs.35,000/- as fine, the sentence of the petitioner shall be reduced to already undergone. In case the fine is not deposited, no benefit of reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 8, 2008 “DK”