Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 Date of Decision: 8.8.2008 Ram Pal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.R.P.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The instant revision petition has been preferred by Ram Pal who was convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, on 20.12.1996 in case FIR No. 16 dated 4.2.1991 registered at Police Station Naraingarh, under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, had sentenced the petitioner under Section 304-A to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and had awarded no separate punishment under Section 279 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 2 The prosecution version set out in the FIR in brief is that statement of Madan Lal was recorded by Head Constable Ram Kumar that he is resident of village Manglor. He along with his nephew was engaged in the work of loading and unloading of bricks for the last 10/12 days. He further stated that truck bearing No. CHW-5188 is owned by Jagdambey Brick Kiln, Sontli. He further stated that the petitioner was driver of the truck. Madan Lal complainant along with his nephew Suresh Kumar, Ram Murti son of Munshi Ram and Raju son of Ved Parkash had gone to Naraingarh from the brick kiln on the truck bearing No. CHW-5188 for gathering wood. At about 12.00 A.M. when they had completed the job of unloading the wood from the truck, complainant Madan Lal along with his nephew Suresh Kumar and Ram Murti and driver Ram Pal proceeded towards the village, it is stated that parna which was worn on the head fell down and Suresh Kumar requested the driver to stop the truck in order to fetch the same. He further stated that without realizing that Suresh Kumar is behind the truck Ram Pal, driver of the truck started reversing the same due to which Suresh Kumar was crushed under the rear left wheel of the truck. Suresh Kumar was brought to Shahzadpur Hospital where he died. It is stated that occurrence had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Prosecution examined Suresh Kumar, Photographer, Modern Studio, Shahzadpur, as PW.1. PW.2 Dr. Ashwani Kumar stated that on 4.2.1991 at 12.30 A.M. Suresh Kumar was brought at Primary Health Center at Shahzadur and information was sent by him vide ruqa Ex.PW.2/A to the police Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 3 station. PW.3 Bachna Ram, father of Suresh Kumar deceased, had identified his dead body during the inquest proceedings. PW.4 Madan Lal is the eye witness and the complainant. PW.5 Ram Murti is another eye witness and he corroborated the testimony of PW.4 Madan Lal. PW.6 Sikander Lal is witness to the recovery memo vide which driving license and permit of the truck were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. PW.7 Raju is another witness. He also stated that while the petitioner was reversing the truck and Suresh Kumar had alighted to pick up his parna and he was crushed under the rear wheel of the truck. PW.8 Raghbir Singh had given the mechanical report regarding the truck. PW.9 Ram Kumar, Head Constable, had recorded the FIR and prepared the inquest proceedings. After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence. While sentencing he was heard on the quantum and it was stated that he is first offender, he is married and has three children who are dependent upon him. Two Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW.4 Madan Lal, PW.5 Ram Murti and PW.7 Raju. The two Courts below have believed the version of eye witnesses that deceased Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 4 Suresh Kumar died when he alighted from the truck to pick up his parna because petitioner was rashly and negligently reversing the offending truck. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the statements of witnesses to contend that they were not present at the spot and had not witnessed the occurrence. It was observed that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. At that stage, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he shall confine his arguments regarding reduction in the sentence. It has been submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 4.2.1991 and the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 17 years and has stated that his children, who at the time of sentence, were young are now near at the age of marriage. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that in case the petitioner is sent behind the bars at this stage, it will affect their matrimonial prospects. It is further stated that petitioner is sole bread earner of the family and the petitioner, before the occurrence, has committed no offence and after his conviction also is leading a life of, peaceful honest citizen from the last 17 years and therefore sending the petitioner behind the bars will serve no useful purpose. It has been further stated that family of the deceased can be monetarily compensated. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was taken into custody on 16.5.1998 and was ordered to be released by this Court on 12.6.1998 and thereafter few days were taken to bail out the petitioner and hence, the petitioner has undergone for about one month, Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 5 out of his actual sentence of one year. Taking into consideration protracted trial, the conduct and antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that family of the deceased can be compensated, it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone subject to payment of Rs.35,000/- as cost which shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased Suresh. Accordingly, on deposit of Rs.35,000/- as fine, the sentence of the petitioner shall be reduced to already undergone. In case the fine is not deposited, no benefit of reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 8, 2008 “DK”