1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No. 1641 of 2009.
Date of Decision: 7.7.2009
***
Ram Chander
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana.
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the
judgments passed by the Courts below.
The petitioner was tried for the commission of offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code with the allegations that on
24.5.2001 he drove vehicle No. HP20-7853 rashly and negligently and
caused accident resulting into the death of one Suresh son of Brij Lal. On
conclusion of trial, the trial court found the charges proved against the
petitioner and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year with a fine of Rs.800/- under Section 304-A IPC while sentence
of three months and fine of Rs.200/- was awarded to him under Section 279
IPC. In default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 15 days was
awarded to the petitioner. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
Fine is stated to have been paid by the convict before the trial court.
On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the appellate Court
below modified the sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC by reducing
the same to the period of 6 months. Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner has
preferred the instant revision petition.
I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below.
Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the
2
prosecution in the shape of eye witnesses i.e. PW.4 and PW.5 coupled with
that of investigating officer and medical expert, to prove the guilt of the
accused to the hilt. It can also be not forgotten that the scope to interfere
with the concurrent findings, by this Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is very limited. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts
below leaves no manner of doubt that the accident in question was outcome
of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, as a result whereof one
innocent person lost his life. Furthermore, the appellate Court below has
already took a lenient view towards the petitioner by reducing his sentence
from one year to six months, keeping in view his antecedents. There is no
merit in the instant revision, which is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
July 7,2009
Jiten