Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1995 Date of Decision: 7.2.2008. Raghbir Singh alias Bhira. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phulka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Raghbir Singh alias Bhira son of Fauja Singh. He was nominated as accused in case FIR No. 35 dated 26.2.1987 registered at Police City Thanesar under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. It is stated in the FIR that on 26.2.1987 at about 3.00 P.M. Durga Dutt along with his nephew Gopal Krishan and Raj Kumar was going to temple to pay obeisance on account of Shivratri festival. Whey they reached near Gol-Bank Chowk, Kurukshetra, they saw Janardhan son of Om Parkash going on bicycle towards Railway Station. It is stated that truck No. HRL-325 hit Janardhan. It has been further stated that truck was driven by the petitioner, rashly and negligently. Petitioner was Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1995 2 tried by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. Relying upon the testimony of PW.1 Durga Dutt, PW.2 Gopal Krishan and PW.3 Raj Kumar, the Court came to conclusion that petitioner is guilty of offence. The petitioner was awarded one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was also sentenced under Section 279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Mr. Phulka appearing for the petitioner has contended that since two Courts below, on appraisal of the facts, held the petitioner guilty, he will not be in a position to dislodge the testimony of the witnesses namely, PW.1 Durga Dutt, PW.2 Gopal Krisahn and PW.3 Raj Kumar, as two Courts below have relied upon their testimony. Mr. Phulka has submitted that since the occurrence pertains to year 1987, period of more than 21 years lapsed and no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Petitioner has undergone about 18 days in jail after his conviction. Sending the petitioner behind bars after 21 years especially when, as per Mr. Phulka, he has committed no other offence, will be unjust. Taking the totality of circumstances, sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. Sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- which shall be given as compensation to the legal heirs of Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1995 3 the deceased. Non-payment of fine will be construed as dismissal of the revision petition. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 7, 2008 “DK”