Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2002 Date of Decision: 23.4.2010 Reet Mohinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Reet Mohinder Singh, who was named as an accused in case FIR No. 103 dated 30.11.1998, registered at Police Station Tapa, under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, vide its judgment dated 8.11.2001, held the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. Vide a separate order passed on the same day, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2002 2 rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, the appellant had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 7.12.2002, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The conviction of the petitioner was upheld and the sentence was maintained. The FIR, in the present case, was lodged at the instance of Janak Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, who stated that he was an agriculturist. On 30.11.1998, he along with his brother Kewal Singh and brother-in-law Karnail Singh, was returning back to his village on scooters. His brother Kewal Singh was driving scooter bearing registration No. PB-03-9002, whereas he and his brother-in-law Karnail Singh were following him on another scooter. At about 5.00 PM. when they were at about one and a half kilometers away from village Rure- Ke-Kalan and reached in front of the fields of Gurdev Singh, at that time, one Tata Sumo bearing registration No. CH-01-T-6885 came from the side of village Dhaula at a very high speed. The offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and had collided with the scooter of Kewal Singh, as a result whereof, he fell down on the road and died at the spot. The petitioner was driver of the offending vehicle. The prosecution examined Janak Singh, complainant, as PW.2 and Karnail Singh, another eye witness, as PW.3. Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that since both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2002 3 testimonies of PW.2 Janak Singh and PW.3 Karnail Singh, he has nothing in his arsenal except to point out contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the testimonies of the said witnesses. He further submits that he is conscious of the fact that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re- appraisal of the evidence. He, however, submits that in the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1998 and a period of 12 years is going to elapse. The petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Learned counsel further submits that in case the petitioner is sent behind the bars, at this stage, no useful purpose will be served but his family will come to the vagaries. He is ready to compensate the family of deceased Kewal Singh, in monetary terms, which may provide some solace. I find merit in the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 23, 2010 “DK”