Crl.Revn. NO.1185 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn. NO.1185 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: March 29, 2010 Jaswant Singh ...PETITIONER VS. State of Punjab ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Jaswant Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 279/304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 304-A of the Code. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 338 of the Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each under Sections 337 and 279 of the Code. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run Crl.Revn. NO.1185 of 2001 2 concurrently. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. Prosecution case in brief is that on 15.01.1996 at about 10.30 A.M., Rajwinder Singh along with Harjeet Singh, Pritam Singh, Satnam Singh and Pappu were coming from Village Galib Kalan to Ludhiana in his Car bearing No.DL-4CB-0019 in a marriage party. When they were ahead from Sidhwan Kalan at a distance of 1-1/2 kms., Truck bearing No.PB-10N-9897 came from the side of Ludhiana being driven by Jaswant Singh accused in a zig-zag manner at a very speed of 100 kms. They were on the left side. Truck driver hit the truck towards the right side of the Car and truck turned towards Ludhiana side. Due to this accident, Car passengers received injuries while Pritam Singh died at the spot. The case was registered on the basis of statement made by Rajwinder Singh leading to registration of case against the accused. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused in the Court. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the Code. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Complainant- Rajwinder Singh PW1, Harjit Singh PW2, Inderjit Singh PW3, Avtar Singh Photographer PW4, Jasbir Singh Clerk D.T.O. Office PW5 and Dr.H.K.Singla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Jagraon PW6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code Crl.Revn. NO.1185 of 2001 3 of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner Jaswant Singh denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication. In defence, the petitioner examined Sikander Singh D.W.1. The trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties convicted and sentenced the accused and that decision in appeal was upheld by the Ist Appellate Court as stated above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with her assistance. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the first offender; he is the only bread winner of the family and, as such, the petitioner-accused be acquitted. On the other hand, prayer of the petitioner has been strongly opposed by the State counsel, who has mainly relied upon the judgment of the trial Court and has submitted that sentence awarded to the petitioner also commensurates with the offence committed by him and, as such, the appeal be dismissed. A perusal of the order passed on 07.08.2001 shows that appeal has been admitted qua sentence only. No doubt, the petitioner has been facing trial for all these years but at the same time, loss of life of a person cannot be ignored. A perusal of the record shows that the truck driver was totally at fault and it is because of his rash and negligent driving that accident had taken place and the passenger of the Car has lost his life. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any flaw in the prosecution case, which otherwise stands proved on record. Even learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction part recorded by the Courts Crl.Revn. NO.1185 of 2001 4 below. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has rightly been convicted in this case. As such, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A, 337 and 338 of the Code is, accordingly, maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of petitioner-accused Jaswant Singh for the last more than fourteen years as the case relates to 15.01.1996, ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of one and half years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine and the default clause are left unaltered. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this revision petition is dismissed. March 29, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE