Crl. Revision No.1664 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1664 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Jasbir Singh son of Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioner Jasbir Singh had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as under:- U/S 279 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days. U/S 304-A IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence dated 19th July, 2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Barnala, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 11th May, 2010. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts Crl. Revision No.1664 of 2010 2 below, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outlet states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He states that he is conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated. Baljinder Singh son of the petitioner is present in Court, who is duly identified by counsel for the petitioner. He has filed an affidavit in court today, which is taken on record as Mark 'A', wherein he has stated that he and his family are ready to compensate the family of the deceased to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in case sentence awarded to his father is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 12th December, 2003, a medical ruqa was received in Police Station Tapa, District Barnala from Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tapa regarding death of Jarnail Singh in road side accident, on which ASI Hukam Singh alongwith other police officials reached the said hospital and recorded statement of Sadhu Singh Ex.PA, who stated that on that day, he and Gurjant Singh son of Amar Singh were going on Crl. Revision No.1664 of 2010 3 a Hero Honda motorcycle, driven by Gurjant Singh from Tajoke Kanchian towards Tapa. His son Jarnail Singh was going on his own scooter bearing No. PB-13E-6115 and was ahead of them. When they reached near the hospital of Dr. Naresh at about 4.00 P.M., they saw a jeep bearing No. HIA-662 coming from Tapa side, being driven rashly and negligently by Jasbir Singh (petitioner herein). The said jeep collided with the scooter of his son Jarnail Singh, who fell down from his scooter and received multiple injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner fled away from the spot by leaving the jeep there, while they were busy in handling the injured Jarnail Singh. He further stated that when injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Tapa, he was declared brought dead. He stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the petitioner. On this statement, the accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan against him was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner and it was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record Crl. Revision No.1664 of 2010 4 was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. He examined owner of the offending jeep as DW1 in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala on 11th May, 2010. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate court has also rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a poor person and main bread winner of his family and not a previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Learned State counsel has placed on record reply by way of affidavit of Shivraj Singh Nandgarh, Deputy Superintendent, Sub Jail, Barnala, according to which the petitioner has undergone custody of 01 Crl. Revision No.1664 of 2010 5 month and 23 days as on 4.7.2010 i.e. three months till today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him but the petitioner is burdened with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Jarnail Singh. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 10, 2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No