Crl.Revn.No.316 of 2002 /1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revn.No.316 of 2002 Date of Decision: March 07, 2011 Manjit Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.DS Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PS Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner/accused Manjit Singh, has preferred this revision against the judgment dated 5.2.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which she dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 28.9.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts, in brief, are that Amrik Singh, complainant, PW1, had been running a bicycle repair shop in his village Ghumanpura. On Crl.Revn.No.316 of 2002 /2/ 12.8.1990, at about 6.30 p.m., he was mending the puncture of the bicycle while his father Niranjan Singh, deceased, was sitting in the open plot at a distance of about 15-20 yards from his shop. Meanwhile, one police vehicle of red colour came at a very fast speed and passed by their side. After some time, that vehicle was brought back and the driver thereof could not control it. On account of the fast speed, it ran over Niranjan Singh while he was sitting on the cot. As a result of that, his right leg was totally crushed and he received other injuries also. In the same vehicle, he was removed to the Government hospital. He was medically examined on 15.8.1990 by Dr.Harinder Pal Singh, PW7, who found seven injuries on his person. The matter was not reported to the police as the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by it and Major Singh, Sarpanch and Kashmir Singh, Ex- sarpanch of the village of the complainant, had been making efforts for a compromise. Niranjan Singh succumbed to those injuries on 18.8.1990 and information to that effect was sent to the police. On 18.8.1990, the complainant made a statement, Exhibit PA, about all these facts before Mukhtiar Singh, ASI, who after making his endorsement on the same sent that to the Police Station and on the basis thereof, FIR was registered under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The ASI went to the hospital and prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased. He sent the same for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and formed opinion that the cause of death was due to injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The ASI went to the place of accident and after inspecting the spot, prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. During the Crl.Revn.No.316 of 2002 /3/ investigation, it was found that the vehicle involved in the accident was having registration No.PB-2A-9853 and on the date of accident, it was the accused, who was deputed as driver on that vehicle and it was he, who had removed the deceased/injured to the hospital. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and the documents, pertaining to his duty on the vehicle, were taken into possession. After the completion of investigation, the challan was put in before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, who found that the accused had committed an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, the prosecution examined Amrik Singh, PW1, Balkar Singh, PW2, Ashok Kumar, PW3, ASI Bhagwant Singh, PW4, ASI Kashmir Singh, PW5, ASI Dalbir Singh, PW6, ASI Gurdial Singh, PW6-A and Dr.Harinder Pal Singh, PW7. After the evidence was closed by the prosecution, the accused was examined by the trial Court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that no such accident was caused by him and on the date of accident, he was not driver of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-2A-9853. He was called upon to enter on his defence, but he did not produce any evidence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused did not assail the conviction of the accused so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the Crl.Revn.No.316 of 2002 /4/ appellate Court. He confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the accused is standing his trial for the last more than 10 years and the legal heirs of the deceased were awarded compensation in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for the recovery of that compensation, deduction has already been made from the salary of the accused. He prayed that in view of these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused be reduced. It was not disputed by the State counsel that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 some compensation has been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. The accused is standing protracted trial for the last more than 10 years and he has suffered the agony of protracted trial, but at the same time it cannot be lost sight that he caused the death of father of the complainant. Keeping in view all the facts, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused is reduced to one year and he is directed to pay Rs.25,000/-, over and above the compensation already awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the legal heirs of the deceased. That compensation shall be paid/deposited by him in the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order, failing which this revision shall stand dismissed. With the above modification, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Records be returned forthwith. ( GURDEV SINGH ) MARCH 07, 2011 JUDGE SRM