Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 Date of decision: August 18, 2009 Mukhtiar Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. RS Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner Mukhtiar Singh had been convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 279/304-A IPC vide judgment dated 31-1-2007. He was sentenced to undergo RI for six months 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 simple imprisonment for one month. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 16th May, 2009 set aside sentence of the petitioner under Section 279 IPC but maintained his conviction. Sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC was also maintained. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction & sentence under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Criminal Revision No. 1622 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 2-10-2002, Gurmeet Sigh deceased was going on his scooter bearing registration No. PB-49-5517. Complainant Randhir Singh along with one Dev Raj was going behind him on a separate scooter bearing registration No. PB-49-3817. When Gurmeet Singh reached at the turning point of village Lohar Majra, a Matadoor bearing registration No. HR-45- 1360 being driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by Mukhtiar Singh, accused/ petitioner came from front side and struck the scooter of Gurmeet Singh, as a result of which he died at the spot and his scooter was smashed. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Thereafter the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State closed the evidence of the prosecution by making statement which was recorded separately. 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 to have caused any accident and pleaded that this case was planted upon him. He examined Ramfal in defence and closed his Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 3 evidence. 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. In appeal, sentence under Section 279 IPC was set-aside, however, conviction was maintained. Conviction & sentence under Section 304-A IPC was upheld. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. So far as sentence awarded separately by the trial Court under Section 279 IPC is concerned, in my view, the appellate Court has rightly set aside the same. 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 the several years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC by the Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-(twenty five 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 Criminal Revision No. 1622 of 2009 4 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 under Section 304-A IPC. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge August 18, 2009. 'ask'