Crl. Revision No.2074 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2074 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2009 Sube Singh .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.B.S. Saroha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sullar, D.A.G., Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Sube Singh has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul vide judgment dated 26.9.2001 and vide order of sentence dated 27.9.2001, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and three months simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.10.2002 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were affirmed. Against that judgment, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision. In this case, the alleged accident had taken place on 6.5.1994 with private bus bearing registration No.RNP-993, which was being driven by the petitioner, in which one Makhan Ram died by falling from the roof the bus. As per the prosecution case, the said accident had taken place due Crl. Revision No.2074 of 2002 -2- to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is further the case of the prosecution that on that date the complainant along with Satparkash, Sanil Kumar and Makhan Lal was going from village Gorir to Narnaul in the said bus. Complainant further stated that he along with the aforesaid persons was sitting on the roof the bus. He further stated when the bus crossed the electric line, Makhan Ram fell down from the roof of the bus and he raised cries upon which the bus driver stopped the bus after covering some distance. It is further the case of the prosecution that when Makhan Ram was being brought to the General Hospital, Narnaul, he expired on the way. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the allegation of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated as he was not driving the bus on the ill fated day. In defence, the accused raised the plea that at the time of the accident, a number of persons were sitting on the roof of the bus without his knowledge and permission, and if Makhan Ram (deceased) had fallen from the roof of the bus, then he himself was to be blamed and it was entirely his own fault. He further raised the plea that except Makhan Ram, none of the five-six persons sitting on the roof of the bus had sustained any injury. Thus, there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner while driving the bus. The trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, convicted the accused and sentenced him, as indicated above. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below as well as the record of the case. After arguing for some time, when the learned counsel for the Crl. Revision No.2074 of 2002 -3- petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, he submits that in this case a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that out of one year of sentence, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 26 days. He further submitted that since November 28, 2002 the petitioner is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 15 years. He further stated that he is the only bread earner in the family. He further stated that the petitioner is the first offender and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In these facts and circumstances, even learned counsel for the respondent-State has not strongly objected if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has already undergone 1 month and 26 days of actual sentence and is on bail since November 28, 2002. Thus, keeping in view the said fact and the facts that he has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 15 years; he is the only bread earner in the family; and he is also not a previous convict, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed. February 13, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE