Crl. Rev. No. 759 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.759 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.7.2009 Surender Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC. The case was instituted on the complaint of Nirmala Devi widow of Vikram Singh. The complainant alleged that on 13th May, 2001, she alongwith her husband had gone to attend a Satsang near village Sisoth on a Moped. On their way back when they reached near the school of village Anawas, a tractor bearing No. HR-34A/1550 alongwith its trolley appeared from the side of Kanina and struck against the Moped. The said tractor-trolley was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Surender Singh, the petitioner herein. The complainant and her husband fell down. Her husband was crushed under the tractor. He later on succumbed to his injuries. After lodging of the FIR, investigation ensued. Ultimately, Crl. Rev. No. 759 of 2009 2 challan was presented against the accused and charge was framed by the trial court under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC on 4th December, 2001. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The trial court after appraising the evidence, particularly testimony of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW7, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. It thus convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Sessions at Narnaul. The appellate court, after appraising the evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that he does not challenge the finding of conviction arrived at by two courts below. He confines his prayer to reduction of sentence of the petitioner. According to the counsel, the offence is of rash and negligent driving. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the accident in question. He has submitted that a prayer was also made before the trial court to release the petitioner on probation. Learned counsel for the State submits that in case the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, he shall have no objection to reduction of sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Crl. Rev. No. 759 of 2009 3 I have carefully gone through the judgments of the trial as well as appellate courts. In my considered view, the evidence has been correctly appreciated by the two courts below and no fault can be found with the finding arrived therein. There is eye-witness account of the manner in which the accident took place. The cause of death had been shown to be shock due to haemorrhage caused by injuries suffered in the accident which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, in view of the fact that there is no other case pending against the petitioner and he appears to be a first offender, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to six months. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 08, 2009 'rajpal'