In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.1900 of 2005 Date of decision: December 01, 2010 Anil Kumar .. Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Accused petitioner Anil Kumar was prosecuted under Sections 279/337/338 IPC and vide judgment dated 24/26.5.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed with the modification in the sentence which was reduced to three months for the aforesaid offences. The factual matrix of the case is that on 27.6.1999 at 5.30 p.m. Nik Raj (PW3) while travelling in his car bearing registration No.CH01-E- 6597 accompanied by his wife Nisha and one Meenu Chawla, reached near village Sain Majra Bus stop, in the meantime, the petitioner while driving Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR01-F-8535 rashly and negligently was seen coming. At this, the complainant took his car on the kacha berm of the said road, however, the petitioner brought his tata sumo straight towards the car of the complainant and struck into it, as a result of which the complainant and his wife Nisha suffered injuries. Consequently, on the statement of the complainant, the case was registered and investigated. The accused was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed with the modification in the sentence. Criminal Revision No.1900 of 2005 -2- *** Arguments heard. Record perused. Nik Raj (PW3) has given the minute details of the occurrence while stating that the accused while driving tata sumo rashly and negligently came and struck against the car injuring him as well as his wife Nisha and one another Meenu Chawla. He has duly identified the petitioner in the court stating that he was on the steering wheel at that time. His testimony stands corroborated by Nisha (PW4) on all material particulars. Not only this, Meenu Chawla (PW5) the third injured eye witness has also supported the prosecution version. Their testimonies stand corroborated by Dr. S.K. Singhal (PW7) and Dr. Archana Jindal (PW8). The entire investigation has also been proved on the record. Both the courts below have duly appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. Re-appreciation of the evidence at this revisonal stage is not permissible. The ocular version fits in with the medical evidence. Since the accused did not bother to comply with the traffic rules, drove his vehicle rashly and negligently and struck against the car of the complainant injuring three persons and causing them simple as well as grievous injuries, therefore, no benefit of probation could be extended to them. The First Appellate Court has already taken the lenient view while reducing the sentence of one year to three months only. No further modification in the sentence could be made. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. December 01, 2010 (A. N. Jindal) deepak Judge