Criminal Revision No.430 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.430 of 1996 Date of Decision: 7 - 1 – 2010 Jagsir Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jagsir Singh son of Kheta Singh has filed the present revision petition. He was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.236 dated 30.12.1991, registered Police Station Sadar Abohar under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 IPC. Petitioner was a driver of Mini Bus bearing registration No.PB-05-1044 belonging to Kamboj Bus Service. On 30.12.1991 at about 12/12.30 noon, his bus had hit Maruti car bearing registration No.DBB 7676 driven by one Om Parkash. It was stated in the FIR that Mini Bus had collided with the Maruti car as petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. In the accident, Nazar Singh son of Arjun Singh and Om Parkash son of Dhonkal Ram had died. PW3 Dr.Pirthi Raj, Criminal Revision No.430 of 1996 [2] Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Abohar conducted autopsy on the dead body of Om Parkash. Nature of injuries leave no doubt that Om Parkash died due to vehicular accident. PW7 Dr.R.K.Arora conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Nazar Singh on 31.12.1991. Injuries suffered by Nazar Singh also justify his opinion that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the accident. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Gurdev Singh. He appeared as PW1 and proved his statement Ex.PA. His version was corroborated by the testimony of Rajwinder Kaur PW2 his wife who was also injured in the accident. Krishan Lal PW5 another eye witness also proved prosecution version. Bur Singh PW4 Mechanic, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur proved mechanical report Ex.PW4/A in respect of Maruti car and Mini Bus. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar held that eye witnesses inspire confidence and relying upon their testimony held the petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 IPC. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. He was also sentenced for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 338 IPC. The entire prosecution evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied incriminating circumstances. However, he stated that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car. Criminal Revision No.430 of 1996 [3] The striking feature of the case is that the petitioner had not run away from the spot but had taken the injured to the hospital and admitted his presence at the spot. Aggrieved against the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Court not only took into consideration the protracted trial but held that Rajwinder Kaur PW2 and Krishan Lal PW5 being injured persons have deposed against the petitioner. The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court on basis of the statement of the witnesses and also held that accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had taken the injured to the hospital and suffered the protracted trial, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence under Section 304-A IPC from two years to one year and under Section 338 IPC from one year to six months. It will be apposite here to notice the following observations of the Appellate Court:- “I have given my thoughtful consideration to this submission also. The appellant has admitted his presence at the time of the accident. The appellant has taken the injured to the hospital, as is clear from ruqa Ex.DA, sent by the doctor. ...” In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 30.12.1991. Period of 18 years had already elapsed. The petitioner had not run away from the spot. As a responsible citizen immediately he carried the injured and the deceased to the hospital. This is another mitigating circumstance which is to be taken into consideration along with the protracted trial suffered by the petitioner. Taking these facts into consideration, the sentence of one year under Section 304-A IPC is reduced Criminal Revision No.430 of 1996 [4] to six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence awarded on other counts is maintained. With this modification in the order of sentence, the revision petition stand disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 7, 2010. JUDGE RC