Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998
Date of Decision: 8.8.2008
Ram Pal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr.R.P.Rana, 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 Ram Pal
who was convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Ambala City, on 20.12.1996 in case FIR No. 16 dated 4.2.1991
registered at Police Station Naraingarh, under Sections 279 & 304-A
IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, had sentenced
the petitioner under Section 304-A to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment and had awarded no separate punishment under Section
279 IPC.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Ambala.
Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 2
The prosecution version set out in the FIR in brief is that
statement of Madan Lal was recorded by Head Constable Ram Kumar
that he is resident of village Manglor. He along with his nephew was
engaged in the work of loading and unloading of bricks for the last
10/12 days. He further stated that truck bearing No. CHW-5188 is
owned by Jagdambey Brick Kiln, Sontli. He further stated that the
petitioner was driver of the truck. Madan Lal complainant along with his
nephew Suresh Kumar, Ram Murti son of Munshi Ram and Raju son of
Ved Parkash had gone to Naraingarh from the brick kiln on the truck
bearing No. CHW-5188 for gathering wood. At about 12.00 A.M. when
they had completed the job of unloading the wood from the truck,
complainant Madan Lal along with his nephew Suresh Kumar and Ram
Murti and driver Ram Pal proceeded towards the village, it is stated that
parna which was worn on the head fell down and Suresh Kumar
requested the driver to stop the truck in order to fetch the same. He
further stated that without realizing that Suresh Kumar is behind the
truck Ram Pal, driver of the truck started reversing the same due to
which Suresh Kumar was crushed under the rear left wheel of the truck.
Suresh Kumar was brought to Shahzadpur Hospital where he died. It is
stated that occurrence had taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of the petitioner.
Prosecution examined Suresh Kumar, Photographer, Modern
Studio, Shahzadpur, as PW.1.
PW.2 Dr. Ashwani Kumar stated that on 4.2.1991 at 12.30
A.M. Suresh Kumar was brought at Primary Health Center at Shahzadur
and information was sent by him vide ruqa Ex.PW.2/A to the police
Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 3
station.
PW.3 Bachna Ram, father of Suresh Kumar deceased, had
identified his dead body during the inquest proceedings.
PW.4 Madan Lal is the eye witness and the complainant.
PW.5 Ram Murti is another eye witness and he corroborated
the testimony of PW.4 Madan Lal.
PW.6 Sikander Lal is witness to the recovery memo vide
which driving license and permit of the truck were taken into
possession by the Investigating Officer.
PW.7 Raju is another witness. He also stated that while the
petitioner was reversing the truck and Suresh Kumar had alighted to
pick up his parna and he was crushed under the rear wheel of the truck.
PW.8 Raghbir Singh had given the mechanical report
regarding the truck.
PW.9 Ram Kumar, Head Constable, had recorded the FIR
and prepared the inquest proceedings.
After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of
petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the
incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the prosecution case
and pleaded his innocence.
While sentencing he was heard on the quantum and it was
stated that he is first offender, he is married and has three children who
are dependent upon him.
Two Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the
testimony of PW.4 Madan Lal, PW.5 Ram Murti and PW.7 Raju. The two
Courts below have believed the version of eye witnesses that deceased
Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 4
Suresh Kumar died when he alighted from the truck to pick up his parna
because petitioner was rashly and negligently reversing the offending
truck.
Counsel for the petitioner pointed out discrepancies,
contradictions and improvements in the statements of witnesses to
contend that they were not present at the spot and had not witnessed
the occurrence. It was observed that this Court while exercising
revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence.
At that stage, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated
that he shall confine his arguments regarding reduction in the sentence.
It has been submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken
place on 4.2.1991 and the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 17
years and has stated that his children, who at the time of sentence, were
young are now near at the age of marriage. Counsel for the petitioner
has further stated that in case the petitioner is sent behind the bars at
this stage, it will affect their matrimonial prospects. It is further stated
that petitioner is sole bread earner of the family and the petitioner,
before the occurrence, has committed no offence and after his
conviction also is leading a life of, peaceful honest citizen from the last
17 years and therefore sending the petitioner behind the bars will serve
no useful purpose. It has been further stated that family of the deceased
can be monetarily compensated.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was
taken into custody on 16.5.1998 and was ordered to be released by this
Court on 12.6.1998 and thereafter few days were taken to bail out the
petitioner and hence, the petitioner has undergone for about one month,
Criminal Revision No. 593 of 1998 5
out of his actual sentence of one year.
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 Suresh. 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”