IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.773 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010 Harinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC on the allegations that on 21.9.1998 at about 2.20 P.M. he drove CTU bus bearing registration No. CH-01-G-5720 in a rash an negligent manner as a result of which it struck against a scooter causing death of its two occupants, namely, Love Kumar and his sister Kiran Bala. Vide judgment and order dated 5.2.2002, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Criminal Revision No.773 of 2003 -2- Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar on 29.3.2003 by maintaining his conviction and sentence. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 16.9.2003 and he was granted the concession of bail. From the testimonies of PW3 Mohinder Singh and PW4 Kamal Dev, it stands established that it was the petitioner who was driving the bus in question on 21.9.1998 at 2.20 P.M. in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, the bus was coming from the Nangal side when it struck against the scooter driven by Love Kumar. As a result of the impact, Love Kumar and his sister Kiran Bala, who was a pillion rider with him on the scooter, fell down on the ground and were run over by the bus. Both Mohinder Singh and Kamal Dev had sufficient opportunity to see the petitioner at the time of the accident. They also identified him during the trial of the case as the one, who was driving the bus in question at the time of the accident. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accident in question had taken place more than 11 years back. Ever since then, the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. At the time of framing of the charges, the petitioner was 41 years of age. By now, he must be in his 50's. When he was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, the petitioner had stated that he was a first offender and sole bread winner of his family. It is also stated that out of the maximum sentence of two years imposed upon him, the petitioner has already undergone a period of about six months. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is Criminal Revision No.773 of 2003 -3- vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel by stating that due to the rash and negligent driving of bus by the petitioner, two innocent road users had lost their lives. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay adequate amount of compensation to the legal heirs of the two deceased persons. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clauses, as directed by the learned lower Courts is also maintained. However, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.80,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment. The aforementioned amount of compensation, if deposited, be released in favour of the legal heirs of the two deceased in equal proportion. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 04, 2010 JUDGE satish