CIVIL APPEAL 610 of 2004 on 14 October 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 610 of 2004(O&M) Date of Decision: February 02,2010

Balkar Singh @ Kala

...........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

..........Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mrs.Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Benniwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mrs. Kamla Malik,Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3**

Sabina, J.

Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section279/337/ 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgmentdated 14.10.2003 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt.Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Section 279 IPC;to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of sixmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 337 IPC and to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine ofRs.700/- under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, the

convict was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of three months for the commission of aforesaid offence. All thesentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same,petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the SessionsJudge,Ambala vide order dated 1.3.2004. However, the sentence ofrigorous imprisonment of two years awarded under Section 304-A IPC wasreduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year,whereas, all the othersentences were ordered to remain intact. Hence, the present revisionpetition by the petitioner-Balkar Singh @ Kala.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The facts leading to the case are that on the morning of11.11.1994 Subhash Chander complainant after dropping hisrelatives at Bus Stand, Ugala, was returning to his Village KasolaKalan on his motor cycle and when he had gone one kilometerahead of Village Ugala, he noticed his nephews Ranbir singh andMunish going to school on a cycle which was being driven byRanbir Singh. Munish was seated on the carrier of the cycle. Atruck No.HR07A/2301 driven by Balkar Singh appellant(hereinafter referred to as the accused) was following them. Thetruck was being driven rashly and negligently. With the view ofthe complainant, the truck struck behind the cycle as a result ofwhich Ranbir Singh fell on the western side in the `kacha' portionand Munish fell on the road on the eastern side. The truck crossedover Munish who died at the spot. Ranbir Singh also sufferedinjuries and his leg was broken. In the meantime, Mewa Singh and Shiv Ram also reached the spot. The truck driver afterparking his truck at a short distance from the place of accidentfled the spot. Ranbir Singh was removed from the place ofaccident for his treatment to Civil Hospital, Shahbad. Leaving thedead body in the custody of Shiv Ram and Mewa Singh, thecomplainant was going to the police station but he came acrossH.C.Birkha Ram near Village Adhoi where the complainant madehis statement Ex.PA leading to the registration of FIR Ex.PA/1.

The investigation was conducted by HC BirkhaRam who prepared rough site plan of the place of accident, tookinto possession the cycle and the truck through separate recoverymemos. The accused was arrested in this case on 14.11.1994when his driving licence was taken into possession. The post-mortem examination was got conducted on the dead body ofMunish. Ranbir Singh was got medically examined. Aftercompletion of the investigation, the accused was challaned by thepolice.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. framedcharge against the accused u/ss 279/337/304 IPC. The accusedpleaded not guilty to the charge.”

Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nowwith the intervention of the relatives and friends, parties have effected acompromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course ofarguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner underSections 279/337/ 304-A IPC but has submitted that the sentence quaimprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner .

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has notcontroverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitionerand has submitted that the said respondents have no objection if thesentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to alreadyundergone by him.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 /337/304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonmentof the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine has alreadybeen deposited by the petitioner.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Februar 02, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge