Criminal Revision No. 1259 of 1999 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1259 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.8.2009 Chandi Ram ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 108 dated 5.3.1992 registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC at Police Station, Sadar Karnal, on the allegation that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, two persons Jaspal Singh and Joginder Kumar expired. Briefly, the facts are that FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Inderjit Singh with the allegations that on 5.3.1992 at about 5.00 p.m., he was going to Charao on his scooter. One motorcycle of Rajdut make without number driven by Jaspal Singh was going ahead of his scooter, whereas Joginder Kumar was sitting on the pillion. When they reached the Charao turning just 1 km ahead of Chatter Chemicals, a truck bearing registration number HR-20-0785, which was being driven rashly and negligently came from the front side and hit the motorcycle. Due to this impact, both riders of the motorcycle fell down alongwith the vehicle. They were crushed under the wheels of the truck. The truck driver sped away with the vehicle towards Karnal. The accident was witnesses by the complainant and Ranbir Singh who was standing near the road in his fields. Later on, the name of the driver came to be known as Chandi Ram. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented. He was charged for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of eye witnesses, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the Criminal Revision No. 1259 of 1999 (2) petitioner were proved beyond doubt and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo following sentence:- Under Section Sentence of imprisonment Fine In default 279 IPC 6 months simple imprisonment 304-A IPC 1 year simple imprisonment Rs. 1,000/- 3 months In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences committed under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the persons who were the eye witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial for about seventeen years and further that he has two children to support and being the sole bread-earner of the family should be extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of one month. He further submitted that the claimants have already been awarded compensation in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paul George vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 478, and judgments of this court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, and sole bread-earner of the family are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. The sentence of fine is converted into compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, which Criminal Revision No. 1259 of 1999 (3) shall be deposited in the trial court within three months on receipt of copy of the order to be disbursed equally to the families of the deceased. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 3.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge