Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2005 Date of Decision: 9.5.2011. Baljinder Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated July 6th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 2nd, 2004 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar whereby petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 304-A IPC RI for 1 year Rs.3000/- RI for 1 month 337 IPC RI for 6 months -- -- 338 IPC RI for 6 months -- -- The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On July 15th, 2000 Ashok Kumar (PW-1) author of First Information Report along with his family members was travelling in Tata Sumo jeep bearing No. HR-23-A-7282 driven by the petitioner from Mani Karan to Ludhiana. The petitioner was driving the jeep at a fast speed inspite of the fact that he was asked by Ashok Kumar and his family members not to do so. At about 4 pm, when they reached on the turn of Bus-stand, Bunga Sahib, the petitioner applied brakes suddenly. As a result, jeep turned turtle after striking against a Maruti Car bearing No. PB-44A-4555. Occupants of the jeep received multiple injuries. Kiran daughter of Ashok Kumar succumbed to her injuries. Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2005 2 3. On completion of investigation, the petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Ashok Kumar in his statement has stated that prior to the occurrence, he had travelled in the jeep of the petitioner 10/15 times and he had been always driving the jeep at a normal speed. So, question of driving the jeep at a fast speed by the petitioner on the day of alleged occurrence and that too, when he was asked not to do so, does not appeal to common sense. The petitioner was blamed for causing the accident in order to take compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act which the complainant had taken. It was also submitted that the accident took place but it was not on account of negligence of the petitioner. In fact, it occurred when the petitioner applied brakes in order to save a major accident with the Maruti Car. Be that as it may, she pleaded that she does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits rather prays for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, that is, 2 months and 11 days. Adding to this, she stated that the petitioner is the only bread winner of his family. He has a family consisting of wife and two small daughters to look after. He was 22 years old when the unfortunate accident took place. He was never involved in any criminal activity before or after registration of the present case. He has already faced the agony of criminal protracted proceedings spreading over a period of 11 years. 5. The grounds taken justify the request made so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. 9.5.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE