Crl.Rev.No.1053 of 1999 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1053 of 1999 Date of Decision: 6 - 3 – 2009 Sukh Ram .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.M.S.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he will not assail the conviction as two Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact. It has been held by two Courts below that petitioner is guilty of rash and negligent driving and thereby has caused the death of Munshi Ram. Brief facts can be gathered from the judgments of two Courts below. Munshi Ram was admitted in Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where ASI Surinder Singh, Incharge of concerned police post reached and recorded the statement of Rajinder Kumar son of Munshi Crl.Rev.No.1053 of 1999 [2] Ram. Complainant stated that his father Munshi Ram and Malkiat Singh on 10.11.1991 were going towards village Phoolanwal on Pakhowal road for bringing milk. At about 8.15 A.M. when his father reached near turning point of Kabir Colony, then a Maruti Van came at a very high speed and driver of the vehicle had not blown the horn and hit his father. Description to determine the identity of the driver was given in the FIR. Eight witnesses were examined by the trial Court. The Court believed the version of eye witness Malkiat Singh. As regards the argument regarding identity was concerned, trial Court held the petitioner to be the driver of the vehicle. Mr.Joshi has stated that he is conscious that revisional Court cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. He has further stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 10.11.1991. The petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of occurrence. More than 17 years are going to elapse. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of about 17 years. He is the only bread earner of his family. Petitioner had undergone 1½ moths of sentence. Counsel stated that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence. Counsel has further stated that petitioner is ready to compensate the family of deceased Munshi Ram. Taking into consideration the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 17 years and has large family to support, the sentence of one year simple imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of Crl.Rev.No.1053 of 1999 [3] certified copy of the order. The fine so deposited be disbursed to legal heirs of Munshi Ram. In case the fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. Revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 6, 2009. JUDGE RC