Crl.Rev. No. 3285 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 3285 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 10, 2010 Dalbir Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.M.B.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Malik,Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Dalbir Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 30.10.2008 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaithal. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence under Section 279 IPC. The accused was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide Crl.Rev. No. 3285 of 2009 2 judgment dated 10.11.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment, are as under:- “2.The story of the prosecution case as can be gathered from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the accompanying documents is that on 3.9.2000 SI Harikesh Singh was posted as Incharge of Police post Titram where an information was received regarding accident between motorcycle and TATA 407 vehicle. On receipt of this information SI Harikesh Singh alongwith his fellow police officials reached at the place of occurrence where Ramesh Kumar son of Sugan Singh met him and said Ramesh Kumar got his statement recorded with SI Harikesh Singh to the effect that he is permanent resident of Mohalla Gari at Rajound district Kaithal and is working as Clerk with Agricultural and Rural Development Bank at Kaithal. The complainant Ramesh Kumar son of Sugan Singh met him and said Ramesh Kumar got his statement recorded with SI Harikesh Singh to the effect that he is permanent resident of Mohalla Gari at Rajound District Kaithal and is working as Clerk with Agricultural and Rural Development Bank at Kaithal. The complainant Ramesh Kumar disclosed that his younger brother Salinder Kumr is posted with police as constable and is presently discharging his services with second Battalion, Madhuban. Said younger brother of complainant had come to Rajound a day prior to the incident and in connection with State Assembly Election, he was to reach Chandigarh. The brother of complainant started from residence at about 5.00 am on Crl.Rev. No. 3285 of 2009 3 his motor cycle make Hero Honda bearing No. HR088-9631 for Kaithal and he was being followed by the complainant Ramesh Kumar as well as his uncle's son Jabbar Singh on a separate motor cycle make Hero Honda. At about 6.30 a.m. when younger brother of complainant had covered a distance of about two or two and half kilometers from Titram turnning, a TATA 407 vehcile came from the opposite side i.e. from Kaithal side which was being driven by its driver at a fast speed. The brother of complainant namely Salinder was driving his motor cycle at a slow speed and on correct left side of the road. Because of fast driving of TATA 407 vehicle by its driver, the said vehcile struck against the motor cycle driven by Salinder Kumar and as a result of impact the motorcyclist was dragged to the Kacha berm of the road. The complainant as well as Jabbar Singh stopped their motor cycle and noted down the number of TATA 407 vehcile as HR 46-1057. The driver of TATA 407 vehicle,however, sped away from the scene of accident. On account of injuries sustained in the accident, Salender Kumar died on the spot. The complainant remained at the place of occurrence whereas Jabbar Singh was sent to Rajound for passing on information at the residence as well as to the police. The complainant maintained that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of TATA 407 vehicle in which his brother had expired. The abovesaid statement was read over and explained to the complainant who signed the same after admitting its correctness 3.On the basis of abovesaid statement proved as Ex.PA at the Crl.Rev. No. 3285 of 2009 4 trial, formal FIR was registered by SI Lachman Singh at the police station. Statements of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rough site plan of place of occurrence was drawn. Both the vehicles were taken into possession by preparing separate memos and vehicles were got mechanically examined and report in that behalf was collected during investigation of the case. The accused/appellant was arrested in the present case on 7.9.2000 and the necessary information was given to his relatives. On completion of investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by SHO PS Sadar Kaithal on 27.9.2000 and challan against the accused/appellant was presented in the court of learned Illaqa Magistrate. 4. The learned trial Court duly complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the appellant was supplied the copies of challan and accompanying documents free of costs. 5. Finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellant, he was charge-sheeted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.1.2001 for committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC but the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges so framed and claimed trial.” This petition was admitted only on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the only bread earner in the family and has small children to look after. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment Crl.Rev. No. 3285 of 2009 5 was on the higher side. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced . Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge February 10, 2010 arya