Crl.Rev.No.1053 of 1999 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.1053 of 1999
Date of Decision: 6 - 3 - 2009
Sukh Ram .....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.M.S.Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he will
not assail the conviction as two Courts below have given concurrent
findings of fact. It has been held by two Courts below that petitioner is
guilty of rash and negligent driving and thereby has caused the death of
Munshi Ram.
Brief facts can be gathered from the judgments of two Courts
below. Munshi Ram was admitted in Christian Medical College and
Hospital, Ludhiana where ASI Surinder Singh, Incharge of concerned police
post reached and recorded the statement of Rajinder Kumar son of Munshi
Crl.Rev.No.1053 of 1999 [2]
Ram. Complainant stated that his father Munshi Ram and Malkiat Singh on
10.11.1991 were going towards village Phoolanwal on Pakhowal road for
bringing milk. At about 8.15 A.M. when his father reached near turning
point of Kabir Colony, then a Maruti Van came at a very high speed and
driver of the vehicle had not blown the horn and hit his father. Description
to determine the identity of the driver was given in the FIR.
Eight witnesses were examined by the trial Court. The Court
believed the version of eye witness Malkiat Singh. As regards the argument
regarding identity was concerned, trial Court held the petitioner to be the
driver of the vehicle.
Mr.Joshi has stated that he is conscious that revisional Court
cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence.
He has further stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on
10.11.1991. The petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of
occurrence. More than 17 years are going to elapse. The petitioner has
suffered a protracted trial of about 17 years. He is the only bread earner of
his family. Petitioner had undergone 1½ moths of sentence. Counsel stated
that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence.
Counsel has further stated that petitioner is ready to compensate the family
of deceased Munshi Ram.
Taking into consideration the submission made by counsel for
the petitioner, that petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 17 years and
has large family to support, the sentence of one year simple imprisonment
awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.
However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The enhanced
amount of fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of
Crl.Rev.No.1053 of 1999 [3]
certified copy of the order. The fine so deposited be disbursed to legal heirs
of Munshi Ram. In case the fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of
sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. Revision petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
March 6, 2009. JUDGE
RC