Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashPresent revision petition has been preferred by Sukhwinder Singh son of Charan Singh. He was named as accused in case FIR No. 314 dated 28.12.2001 registered at Police Station Pehowa under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa found the petitioner guilty of offence u/s 279 and 304-A IPC, and sentenced him as under:
� u/s 279 IPC Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, he
would undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days.
� u/s 304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two
years.
2. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The conviction was upheld and the sentence awarded upon the petitioner was maintained.
3. FIR, in the present case, was registered on the basis of statement made by Iqbal Singh PW-1, who stated that on 28th December, 2001, he along with Joga Singh, had gone to the shop of his son for providing food. At that time, he saw that Santokh Singh son of Bishan Singh was coming on the side of the road. A truck bearing registration No. HF 07 GA-0195 came from the side of Patiala in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. The truck had hit a tractor-trolley, which was going ahead. Due to the impact of accident, wheels of the tractor-trolley came out and hit Santokh Singh. The front wheel of the offending truck crushed Santokh Singh and the truck also fell down in the ditches. Santokh Singh died at the spot.
4. Prosecution had examined five witnesses. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of Iqbal Singh PW-1, Jagtar Singh PW-2 and Balbir Singh PW-3, to hold the petitioner guilty of rash and negligent driving for having caused the death of Santokh Singh.
5. Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly contended that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner, as finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below. He has further stated that except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the testimony of witnesses, there is nothing in his arsenal to dislodge the findings recorded by both the courts below. Counsel has further stated that he is conscious that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence. However, learned Counsel has submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to the year 2001. Petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for about 9 years. It is further submitted that petitioner has already undergone 2 months and 23 days of actual sentence out of the total sentence awarded to him and he is not involved in any other such case. Learned Counsel has stated that the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of his family and still he is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased. Counsel has prayed that the sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to payment of a fine of Rs. 35,000/-. The same shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Santokh Singh. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner.
8. With the modification in sentence, ordered above, present revision petition is disposed of.
