Criminal Revision No.687 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.687 of 2006 Decided on 14.12.2011. Sanjay Kumar ...... Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .. .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, AAG, Haryana . K.C.PURI, J. Challenge in this petition is the order dated 8.3.2006 passed by Shri Surinder Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which the appeal preferred by the accused/revisionist/petitioner against the judgment dated 1.6.2004 passed by Shri Sanjay Sandhir, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani vide which the accused has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC) was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the the case of the prosecution is that on 26.6.1996 complainant Prem Singh came to the police station and made a statement that on the same day at about 8.00a.m., he has gone to his fields Criminal Revision No.687 of 2006 2 towards Bhawani Khera side and at about 8.30a.m., when he was coming back on Hansi-Bhawani road, in the meanwhile, from Hansi side a white Ambassador car bearing registration No.CH-01-J-7129, which was being driven by a young man came rashly and negligently at a high speed and hit Suresh, Saroj and Raja Bala after coming on a wrong side. As a result of the impact, Suresh and Saroj were thrown at some distance. Jagmal son of Bhagwana, who was working in the field, has also seen the accident along with the complainant. In the meantime, person sitting in the car took Saroj and Raj Bala towards Bhiwani. Suresh died at the spot. The complainant after leaving Jagmal near Suresh came to Bhiwani, Saroj also succumbed to her injuries in the accident. The FIR was registered on a statement and after completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court against the accused. 3. The documents as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused free of costs. The accused was charge sheeted under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined SI Ramesh Kumar as (PW-1), Har Chand as (PW-2), Singh Ram complainant as (PW-3), Shyam Sunder as (PW-4 ), Dr.K.L.Bawa as (PW-5), M.D.Sharma as (PW-6 ), Raj Bala as (PW-7), Jagmal as (PW-8), HC Krishan Kumar as (PW-9), EHC Dharambir as (PW-10) and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering certain documents. 5. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, Criminal Revision No.687 of 2006 3 the accused did not opt to lead any defence evidence. 6. The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC vide judgment and order dated 1.6.2004 and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 304-A, IPC and to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment of conviction, the convict/accused has preferred the appeal before Shri Surinder Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 8.3.2006. 8. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been filed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that no independent witness has been examined. The occurrence has taken place in the day light. No identification parade was conducted. The identification parade of the revisionist in the Court is immaterial. In fact, the petitioner on the humanitarian ground has taken away Saroj and Raja Bala to hospital. The prosecution instead of rewarding the petitioner has falsely implicated him in the present case. 11. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the said submission. 12. Saroj Bala, the injured eye-witness along with Singh Ram Criminal Revision No.687 of 2006 4 complainant and Jagmohan Singh, the other eye-witness have supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. There was no enmity on the part of any of those witnesses to falsely implicate the accused and to allow the actual culprit to go scot free. The benefit of his taking the injured to the hospital has already been given to the petitioner as only simple imprisonment for a period of six months has been awarded for taking the lives of two persons. There is concurrent finding of fact regarding guilt of the accused and no ground for interference in that concurrent finding of fact is made out. Jagmal Singh is an independent witness and it cannot be said that only due to his taking away injured to the hospital, he has been falsely implicated. Saroj Bala, the injured eye-witness has identified the petitioner along with other two eye-witnesses. So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial Court does not call for any interference. 13. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the revisionist regarding acquittal, in that case, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of two months and two days out of the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed under Section 304-A, IPC. He has further contended that the petitioner has taken the injured to the hospital. The legal heirs of deceased have been awarded compensation. So, the prayer has been made for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. 14. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the said submission. 15. The faith of the people in Judiciary would erode considerably Criminal Revision No.687 of 2006 5 in case his sentence is further reduced on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Two persons had lost their lives and one person has received injuries and punishment awarded is only for a period of six months under Section 304-A, IPC. The benefit of his taking the injured to the hospital has already been given by the trial Court. No scope for further reduction in sentence is made out. 16. Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 17. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for taking the petitioner into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. December 14, 2011 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE