Crl. Revision No.629 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.629 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 26, 2010 Shamsher Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms. Smriti Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 12.6.2008. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 20.1.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the learned Sessions Crl. Revision No.629 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Judge, Jalandhar in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “ The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.4.2002, at about 8.30 p.m. Pakher Singh, deceased, alongwith his son Swaraj Singh, deceased, started from Grain Market, Bahudinur, for their village Dhingrian in motor vehicle Make Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR-01K-38156 (hereinafter referred to as the “TATA SUMO”), which was being driven by Swaraj Singh. Before they started from that Grain Market, Amandeep Singh, PW4, the other son of Pakhar Singh and Faquir Singh, PW5, had started for their village on their scooter. When they reached in the limit of Kuthar, Swaraj Singh overtook them. They had just crossed the scooter, when the accused came driving truck bearing registration No.HIE-937 from the opposite side at a very high fast speed and without blowing any horn and struck the same in “TATA SUMO” and thereafter, dragged that vehicle towards left hand side. The engine of the truck got entangled in the engine of the “TATA SUMO”. As a result of this accident, both the deceased died at the spot itself. Sucha singh, ASI, alongwith other police officials, was proceedings towards Kuthar, in the Government Vehicle, in connection with his Government duty. The complainant met him near the Gurudwara of that village and made statement, Ex.P1 about this accident. The ASI, after making his endorsement on that statement, sent the Crl. Revision No.629 of 2010 (O&M) 3 same to the police station, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. was recorded under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. Accompanied by the complainant, he came to the place of accident and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. The vehicles, involved in the accident, were taken into possession by him, vide recovery memo. He prepared inquest reports in respect of the dead bodies and sent the same to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar for post mortem examination, alongwith his application, through Parminder Lal, HC and Tarlok Singh, Constable. Autopsy on the dead bodies, was performed on 5.4.2002 by Dr. Baldev Singh Walia, PW1, who found ante mortem injuries on both the dead bodies and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock, resulting from those injuries, which were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was arrested on 26.4.2002. He produced the registration of the truck and his own driving licence before the S.H.O. of the Police Station and those were taken into possession, vide recovery memo. On the same day, both the vehicles were mechanically tested by Desu Dass, constable Mechanic, PW3, and about those tests, he gave reports Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. After completion of the investigation, the challan as put in before the JMIC, Jalandhar, for the trial of the accuse for the aforesaid offences.” Crl. Revision No.629 of 2010 (O&M) 4 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC, but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than 1 year and 3 months of actual sentence. Petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family. Fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. As per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned State Counsel petitioner has undergone 1 year, 2 months and 26 days of actual sentence as on 15.4.2010. Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. A perusal of the order of conviction passed by the trial Court reveals that fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) April 26, 2010 JUDGE Anand