Crl. Revision No.2235 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2235 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2009 Daljit Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Malkiat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Daljit Singh has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur vide judgment dated 25.8.2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 279 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 11.11.2002. By the said judgment, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and instead he was convicted under Section 337 IPC and sentenced to Crl. Revision No.2235 of 2002 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against that judgment, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision. In this case, the alleged accident had taken place on 13.4.2000 with a four-wheeler bearing registration No.PB-32-B/2429, which was being driven by the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 13.4.2000, 16/17 persons boarded the four-wheeler which was going from village Tehra for Chandigarh. It is also the case of the prosecution that the said four-wheeler stopped near Village Nanowal to pick up some more persons. It is further the case of the prosecution that the four-wheeler was being driven by the petitioner at a very high speed and it abruptly and negligently took a sharp turn with the result, it got struck against a Tahli tree stranding on the left side of the road, which caused injuries to Ashwani Kumar and Jaspal Singh. However, Jaspal Singh succumbed to his injuries at PGI, Chandigarh. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the allegation of the prosecution and pleaded that he is innocent and has not caused any accident. In defence, the accused raised the plea that at the time of the accident, he was not driving the four-wheeler. While in cross- examination to PW1-Ashwani Kumar, he has given the suggestion that since one car was coming from the opposite side, so, in order to save the said car, the accused got his vehicle struck into the Tahli tree. Again a suggestion was given to the said witness that the road was in a bad shape at the place of accident. The Appellate Court after taking into consideration the material Crl. Revision No.2235 of 2002 -3- available on the record and the evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him, as indicated above. While acquitting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, it has been held that in this case the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, has not been examined and, therefore, the post-mortem report given by the said doctor could not be read to conclude that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered by him in the alleged accident. 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 petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the Appellate Court, he submits that in this case a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that out of six months of sentence, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 9 days. He further submitted that since December 19, 2002 the petitioner is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 9 years. He further stated that he is the first offender and has been convicted for a minor offence i.e. under Section 337 IPC, 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 Crl. Revision No.2235 of 2002 -4- will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has already undergone 1 month and 9 days of actual sentence and is on bail since December 19, 2002. Thus, keeping in view the said fact and the facts that he has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 9 years and is the first offender, 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