Criminal Revision No.2162 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2162 of 2004 Date of Decision 28.06.2010 Mann Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 30.09.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 13.05.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 304-A IPC. However, the Appellate Court, while setting aside the sentence under Section 279 IPC, reduced the sentence to 18 months under Section 304-A IPC. Prosecution version is that on 22.03.2000, the complainant Malik Singh and his brother Rachhpal Singh were coming from village Raomajra to Lakhomajra after collecting the milk. At about 8:30 a.m. when they had just crossed the bridge of the canal near village Mithumajra, the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HR-37A-5554, Criminal Revision No.2162 of 2004 2 rashly and negligently came from Patiala side. Though Rachhpal Singh on smelling the rashness of the accused, took his bicycle on the kacha berm. Yet the accused while driving it rashly and negligently, took it on the wrong side and struck against the deceased Rachhpal Singh, who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, the accused was challaned. He was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution led evidence which was followed by the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein while denying the allegations, the accused pleaded that his fault was only that on finding Rachhpal Singh in an injured condition, he had taken him to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and spent money on his treatment but he was doubted as a culprit and implicated in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, has tried to build his case while urging that the presence of complainant Malik Singh at the spot is doubtful. But to my mind, on appreciation of his statement, he appears to be present at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Both the Courts below has found him reliable and trustworthiness witness. Complainant Malik Singh has specifically deposed that the accused had come and begged pardon from him, however, the accused denied his request to take Rachhpal Singh to the hospital but fled away. It is not a case of doubtful identity. The witness had sufficient time and opportunity to see the accused. He had no reason to falsely implicate him in the case. His testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reason of his relationship with Criminal Revision No.2162 of 2004 3 the deceased. Having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court reaches the irresistible conclusion that no such illegality much less irregularity was found in the impugned judgments warranting interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence took place way back on 22.03.2000 and the sword of sentence remained hanging over the head of the accused for the last 10 years and he has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending in the Court since then. However, keeping in view the fact that the unfortunate tragedies are taking place on the road due to the negligence on the part of untrained, uneducated, illiterate, ruthless and careless drivers, heavy vehicles drivers move on the road without taking care of the pedestrian, cyclists or other small vehicles resulting into mass devastation. As such, the delay in disposal of the case may be a mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence but is not sufficient to abrogate the sentence altogether. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.06.2010 mamta-II