Criminal Revision No.1382 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1382 of 1999 Date of Decision:15.07.2009 Sarup Lal .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 16.7.1998 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala whereby he convicted and sentenced Sarup Lal accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the same to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 304-A of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of the same to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days with a further Criminal Revision No.1382 of 1999 -2- direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The facts in brief are that on 7.8.1992 Joginder Singh deceased had set out for Ambala Cantt on his cycle loaded with vegetables at about 4:30 A.M. He was being followed by his brother Kaka Singh PW on a separate cycle. When Joginder Singh had already crossed the bridge of Omla river situated at G.T. Road and was at some distance from it, meanwhile DCM Toyota bearing registration No.PIL-9576 being driven by accused Sarup Lal rashly and negligently came from behind and struck against the cycle of Joginder Singh. As a result of the impact, he fell in the ditches along with his cycle and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. After hitting Joginder Singh, the said DCM Toyota being out of control went towards left hand side and stopped after striking against the eucalyptus tree. As a result of this, Uma Rani Goel and Monika Goel, who were sitting in the said vehicle also sustained injuries and expired. Inder Kumar PW and Anil Goel also received injuries. On the basis of the statement of Kaka Singh, the case was registered. The accused was arrested. After observing usual formalities and on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. He put forth that he was not driving the vehicle and he also denied to have caused this accident. He did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the Criminal Revision No.1382 of 1999 -3- evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, the accused has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realising that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings recorded by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the the Courts below in any manner. On scrutinising and analysing the evidence on record with due care and circumspection, it transpires that the findings returned by both the Courts below in no manner can be faulted with. Sequelly, the conviction is upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a misericordious submission that the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. Statedly, the petitioner has undergone meager sentence. If the sentence is reduced to the already undergone, the conscience of the friends and the relatives of the three deceased persons would be shocked and they would be having a feeling that injustice has been done. In the words of Justice Brennan of the United States, Supreme Court “Nothing rankles more in the human heart than brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with, but injustice makes us want to pull things down.” In the words of Lord Hewart “It is not merely of some importance but as of fundamental Criminal Revision No.1382 of 1999 -4- importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” That being so, this prayer is declined. However, taking into consideration the fact that this occurrence is more than 16 years old and the petitioner is facing the agony of trial since pretty long time, the sentence is hereby reduced to six months. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala for taking necessary steps to procure the presence of the petitioner and to send him to the prison for serving the unexpired period of his sentence. July 15, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No