CRR No. 1847 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1847 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.10.2010 Satish Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Vide the impugned judgement and order dated 01.02.2010/04.02.2010, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, convicted and sentence the petitioner as under:- Sr. No. For offence punishable Under Section Sentenced 1 279 of Indian Penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days 2 304 A of Indian Penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1/½ years and to pay a fine of `4000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 30 days. CRR No. 1847 of 2010 2 Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal against aforesaid judgement and order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The said appeal was dismissed. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner was facing the agony of long trial for the last 10 years, the sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from 1½ years to 1 year. While challenging the aforesaid judgements and order passed by the both the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reliance can be placed on the witness of PW6 Gian Chand as he is an interested witness. The deceased was his niece. It was further contended that besides the oral statement of the witnesses, there is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner was driving the Jeep in question in a rash and negligent manner. Heard. As per the facts of the case, the deceased along with other students after school hours and while waiting for their Bus, boarded the Jeep in question. The petitioner started driving the jeep at a very high speed and did not pay any heed to the warning of the deceased and other girls to drive the jeep slowly. When the deceased girl was alighting from the Jeep, the petitioner abruptly moved the jeep. Resultantly, she fell down and received fatal injuries and died at the spot. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses, including Gian Chand-complainant and other three girls who were also travelling with the deceased in the Jeep in question as PW1, PW2 and PW3, namely, Nippal alias Nisha, Babita alias Savita and Poonam, respectively. All have supported the prosecution version. The entire sequence of events suggests that the accident took place on account of rash CRR No. 1847 of 2010 3 and negligent driving of Jeep by the accused-petitioner. Nothing has been pointed out which may enable this Court to set aside the well reasoned judgements and order passed by both the Courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, the order/judgement convicting the appellant is upheld. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been facing the protracted trial since the year 2000 and also the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the substantial period of sentence i.e. almost seven months of the actual sentence, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to 'already undergone' subject to the payment of `15,000/- as compensation. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as 'already undergone' subject to the payment of `15,000/- as compensation. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 06, 2010 mohan