IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2242 of 2003 Date of decision: September 20, 2010 Raj Roop .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gurcharan Singh Bains, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. Raj Roop, Driver has assailed the judgment dated 24.09.2003 dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 04.07.2002 passed by trial Court convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC, however, he was acquitted under Section 279 IPC by the appellate Court. On 28.08.1995, the complainant Arvind Kumar along with his brother-in-law Raj Kumar, mother Vijay Rani Gupta and friend Dara Singh was returning from Ludhiana in his Maruti Car bearing No.HR-01-C-8028. The car was being driven by Arvind Kumar whereas his brother-in-law was sitting on the front seat, mother and friend of the complainant Arvind Kumar were sitting on the rear seat. At about 9 PM, when they reached near Shahidanwala Gurudwara in Village Alimajra then the accused while driving the Bus at a very rash and negligent manner came from the Ambala Criminal Revision No.2242 of 2003 -2- side and hit against a Truck, which was parked on its left side on the Katcha berm and thereafter he also dragged the car, driven by the deceased up to the distance of 20/25 yards. During the accident, Raj Kumar and his mother Vijay Rani Gupta succumbed to their injuries at the spot whereas Dara Singh and the complainant suffered injuries. On the aforesaid statement made by Arvind Kumar, formal FIR (Ex.PA) was registered. The case was investigated and the accused was challaned. The trial Court took the view that since the post mortem reports relating to the deceased Raj Kumar and Vijay Rani were not proved on the record, therefore, the accused could not be convicted under Section 304-A IPC. The trial Court appears to have rightly convicted the accused under Section 338 IPC as except the doctor who treated Dara Singh, no other evidence has been led. Even Investigating Officer has not been examined in order to prove the post mortem reports of the deceased. Even the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Raj Kumar and Vijay Rani has not been examined. Thus, both the Courts below were right in not convicting the accused under Section 304-A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction has submitted that since the accused had already undergone two months of the sentence and had also deposited the fine, therefore, he has sought for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard. The occurrence in this case took place on 28.08.1995. The accused has been facing the agony of the trial and the other proceedings since then, as such, he has already suffered a lot. Nothing has been brought on record in order to prove that he was a previous offender or that he has Criminal Revision No.2242 of 2003 -3- committed the offence during the proceedings. The petitioner was 52 years old at the time of making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 13.05.2002, now he must be 60 years old. He is stated to be a public servant and is on the verge of his retirement. He has children of the marriageable age and is ready to compensate injured Dara Singh. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, this revision petition is dismissed and the sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond he will be ready to serve sentence of and when called for. He would pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to injured Dara Singh within 3 months from today. It is further ordered that the order of probation would not effect his service career. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance. September 20, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) Gagan Judge