Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 404 (PNJ)

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 12.10.1987, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and directed that the fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the petitioner, if recovered, he converted into compensation, to be paid to the heirs of the deceased Satbir. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.1983, at about 12.15 PM, Satbir aged about 14-15 years, since deceased, was driving his bicycle while Balraj, PW, was a pillion rider on it and both of them were going towards their village from Bahadurgarh on Jhajjar Road and when they had reached near the rubber factory on Jhajjar Road, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HYB- 2076, being driven by the petitioner at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction. The deceased Satbir swerved his bicycle along the road side on kacha portion of his side but the offending bus hit his cycle as a result of which Satbir died on the spot, while Balraj, PW, received injuries. On receipt of information about this accident, HC Bharat Singh of Police Station Bahadurgarh, along with other police officials rushed to the spot and recorded the statement, Ex. PW-3/A, of Balraj injured. The dead body after inquest proceedings was sent for post mortem. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was arrested. Balraj PW, was got medically examined on the same day. The bus was also got mechanically examined by Hazari Lal, whose report is Ex. PW-2/A. The place of occurrence was also got photographed and after completion of investigation, the petitioner was challaned under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and framed a charge under the said section against the petitioner. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined five witnesses; namely Dr. Ishwar Anand Yadav, Medical Officer, E.S.I. Dispensary No. 1, Bhadurgarh, Hazari Lal, Motor Mechanic, Police Lines Rohtak, Balraj, complainant-injured, Maha Singh, eye witness and Dharambir, Photographer. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined five witnesses; namely Dr. Ishwar Anand Yadav, Medical Officer, E.S.I. Dispensary No. 1, Bhadurgarh, Hazari Lal, Motor Mechanic, Police Lines Rohtak, Balraj, complainant-injured, Maha Singh, eye witness and Dharambir, Photographer. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by order dated 8.10.1986 as it failed to complete its evidence despite many adjournments including the last opportunity. 5. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The learned Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the petitioner under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 12.10.1987 and in this manner, the present revision. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgments and the grounds of revision and am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below so far as the conviction aspect is concerned. The sole point which survives for determination is what sentence should be awarded to the petitioner, after a lapse of 17 years as the occurrence took place in the year 1983. The petitioner is suffering the agony of criminal trial since 1983 and in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice will suffice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to three months and it is ordered accordingly, the sentence of the (sic). 8. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Revision dismissed.