Criminal Revision No. 1258 of 1999 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No. 1258 of 1999
Date of Decision: 8.8.2008
Prem Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana, for the State.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The instant revision petition has been preferred by Prem
Kumar, who was convicted by the Court of learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. He
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of
fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,500/- under Section 304-A IPC. In
default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months.
Aggrieved against the said judgment, the petitioner had
Criminal Revision No. 1258 of 1999 2
preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge Hisar.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.12.1994 Ram
Sarup got recorded his statement that he had gone to Bhattu on a
Camel Cart. On the way, his nephews namely Ruli Chand and Mahinder
met him. He was returning to village on his Camel Cart, whereas
Mahinder and Ruli Chand were going to their village on a bicycle. He
further stated that Ruli Chand was peddling the bicycle and Mahinder as
sitting on the front rod of the said bicycle. Then they reached at a
distance of 5 Kms. From Bhattu Kalan, one four wheeler bearing No.
HYN-5086 came from their back side. The said four wheeler was being
driven by Prem Kumar rashly and negligently and hit the bicycle of Ruli
Chand from the back side. Due to this Ruli Chand fell on the katcha
path whereas Mahinder fell on the road. The petitioner had stopped his
vehicle at some distance. The petitioner alighted from his vehicle and
on seeing the deceased he fled away from the spot. Ram Sarup after
alighting from his Camel Cart and rushed towards the place of accident
and had seen that Mahinder had succumbed to his injuries. Due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the said four wheeler, the
accident had taken place and Mahinder Singh died in the said accident.
The FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner was charged for the offences under
Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.
Prosecution examined Phool Singh as PW.1 who had
mechanically examined the offending vehicle bearing No. HYN-5086
and had given his report Ex.PA.
Criminal Revision No. 1258 of 1999 3
Ram Sarup, complainant and eye witness to the occurrence
had appeared in the Court as PW.2 and has supported the prosecution
version.
PW.3 Ruli Chand is also an eye witness to the occurrence.
He had corroborated the version of PW.2 Ram Sarup.
PW.4 Devinder Soni is the Photographer. He had taken the
photographs of the place of occurrence and proved the same along with
negatives Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
PW.3 Dr. S.P.Mimani had conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body of Mahinder and proved on record his
report Ex.PW3/A and diagram showing the receipt of injuries
Ex.PW3/B.
Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence. All the
incriminating evidence was put to the accused in his statement recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He refuted the allegations levelled by the
prosecution.
At time of sentencing, the petitioner had stated before the trial
Court, that he has his old aged parents and is the only bread earner of
his family.
The two Courts below have believed the testimony of PW.2
Ram Sarup, complainant and PW.3 Ruli Chand that the petitioner was
driving the offending truck rashly and negligently, due to which Mahinder
had died.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he
will not be able to assail the prosecution case as two Courts below have
held the petitioner to be guilty. He further stated that he will confine his
Criminal Revision No. 1258 of 1999 4
arguments only regarding reduction of sentence. He further stated that
in the present case the occurrence had taken place on 29.11.1994 and
the petitioner has suffered the protracted trial for the last 14 years. He
further stated that in the last 14 years except the present offence, the
petitioner has not committed any other offence and is leading the life of
honest and peaceful citizen. Therefore, sending the petitioner behind the
bars will serve no useful purpose. Counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the
family of the deceased in monetary terms.
According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has
undergone seven days out of his actual sentence.
Taking into consideration protracted trial, the conduct and
antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that family of the deceased
can be compensated, it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to already undergone subject to payment of
Rs.35,000/- as cost, which shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the
deceased Mahinder.
Accordingly, on deposit of Rs.35,000/- as fine, the sentence of
the petitioner shall be reduced to already undergone. In case the fine is
not deposited, no benefit of reduction of sentence shall accrue to the
petitioner.
With these observations, the present revision petition is
disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
August 8, 2008
“DK”