Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 647 (PNJ)

Krishan v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-27

T.P.S.MANN

body2010
Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the two counts under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, whereas for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sec.279 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. 2. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision filed under Sec.401 Cr. P. C. According to the prosecution, on 23.9.1995 at 6.00 P. M. , complainant Parkash, accompanied by his son Komal, aged 11 years, his neighbour Banarsi and banarsis son Anil, aged 10 years, was going to Babra Chowk, Rohtak to fetch milk. When they were crossing the roundabout near Mata Darwaja, a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HR-12-9619 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Jind road. The driver did not blow the horn but turned the bus towards right side, where the complainant and others were walking. On noticing the bus coming towards them, the complainant and banarsi jumped on the roundabout and saved themselves, whereas the two children were trapped between the bus and the grill of the roundabout and received injuries. It was the petitioner who was driving the bus at the time of the accident. He tried to flee from the spot by driving the bus away but had to abandon it at a distance of 50 steps. He came out of the bus and fled away. Out of the two children, Komal, son of the complainant, succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution had examined Parkash PW2, Banarsi PW3 and Ramphal PW10, in support of the ocular account. All of them stood the test of cross-examination. The petitioner was not able to bring any material on record so as to convince the Court that he had been falsely implicated. Under these circumstances, there is no scope for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. 3. All of them stood the test of cross-examination. The petitioner was not able to bring any material on record so as to convince the Court that he had been falsely implicated. Under these circumstances, there is no scope for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accident in question had taken place in September 1995 and ever since then the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. He has a large family of three children and his wife to look after as he is the sole bread winner. The petitioner is not a previous convict. Moreover, the injured and the heirs of the deceased have already been awarded compensation by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and they have already been paid the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner be granted relief of probation instead of being sent behind the bars, once again, for serving the remaining sentence. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that by his rash and negligent driving the petitioner caused the accident in which a male child, aged 11 years lost his life, while another child, aged 10 years received injuries. Therefore, it was not a fit case where the petitioner be granted the benefit of probation. 5. It is not in dispute that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the injured as well as to the legal heirs of deceased Komal and the amount so awarded stands paid to them. The sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the head of the petitioner since September 1995. After the dismissal of his appeal by the lower Appellate Court, the petitioner remained behind the bars for some period of time, whereafter he was granted the concession of bail. The petitioner is not shown to be a previous convict and there is nothing against his antecedents and character to disentitle him for being granted the benefit of probation. At the same time, he can be required to further compensate the legal heirs of deceased Komal. The petitioner is not shown to be a previous convict and there is nothing against his antecedents and character to disentitle him for being granted the benefit of probation. At the same time, he can be required to further compensate the legal heirs of deceased Komal. Resultantly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. During the said period, the petitioner shall be of good behaviour and not indulge in any such crime. While furnishing the bonds, he shall also deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- which shall thereafter, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. In the event of the petitioner misusing any condition imposed upon him, he shall be liable to be taken into custody to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the lower Court. The amount of Rs.500/- imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court as fine for the offence under Sec.279 IPC which already stands paid, as is clear from the judgment passed by the trial Court, shall be considered as costs of litigation.