Attar Singh v. State of Haryana

Mr. Sunil K. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Attar Singh son of Shish Ram resident of Tosham, district Bhiwani has filed present revision petition. He was tried in case FIR No.393 dated 28.12.1991 registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak under Sections 279/304-A IPC. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal.

The appellate Court maintained the conviction, however, reduced the sentence Criminal Revision No.994 of 1998 2 under Section 304-A IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine and default clause were maintained. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by Rani Kumari to Rajvir Singh Head Constable. In her statement Ex.PA, Rani Kumari stated that she was resident of village Lahli. Her younger sister Kailash was married with Baldev Raj resident of Kalanour. On 28th December, 1991 her sister Kailash had come to her house at Lahli along with her son Sunil. At about 5.00 p.m. her sister Kailash and sister’s son Sunil left the village of the complainant for going to Baniyani along with the complainant. Baniyani is the maternal village of the complainant and her sister Kailash. At about 5.15 p.m. they alighted at the bus stand and were waiting for the vehicle to go to Baniyani.

Meanwhile, a Haryana Roadways Bus came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit Sunil, who was standing on the roadside. Due to collusion, Sunil fell down on the road and tyre of the Bus ran over both the legs of Sunil. He suffered many injuries. The Bus driver had stopped the bus at a distance. The number of the Bus was learnt as HR- 16 0305. The bus belonged to Bhiwani Depot of Haryana Raodways. The driver ran away from the spot, after leaving the bus. In a Maruti van, which was coming from the opposite side, the complainant and Kailash brought Sunil to Hospital at Rohtak for treatment. He was got admitted in the Casualty Ward. A grievance was made that the injuries were caused to Sunil in the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus No.HR-16 0305. Sunil expired later, due to injuries suffered in the accident. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.

The petitioner was charged for offence under Section 304-A and 279 IPC. Criminal Revision No.994 of 1998 3 Rani Kumari complainant appeared as PW-1. Kailash mother of Sunil appeared as PW-2. Both were eye witnesses. Mulakh Raj husband of Rani Kumari appeared as PW-3. Dr.S.P. Chugh PW-4 had conducted medico legal examination Ex.PW4/A of Sunil. Ram Dhan PW-5 proved medical treatment file of Sunil. Dr.Indu Lalit PW-6 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the Sunil. HC Lehri Singh PW-7 had recorded the formal FIR Ex.PW7/A. Subhash Chand PW-8 proved the duty slip pertaining to present petitioner. Ramesh Chander SI PW-9 and PW-10 Duty Clerk also appeared. The Duty slip was brought on record and proved as Ex.PW8/A. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating evidence was put to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. In defence, the accused examined Krishan Lal as DW-1, who stated that he was the eye witness of the occurrence and DW-2 Ashok Kumar Sub Inspector from the Haryana Roadways, Rohtak.

The trial Court placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW-1 Rani Kumari and PW-2 Kailash mother of the deceased Sunil. Both were the eye witnesses. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the lower appellate Court. This Court cannot tread on the path of re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity which warrants interference by the revisional Court. I have perused the evidence and the judgments of two courts below. Nothing has been brought to my notice to set aside the well founded findings recorded by the two courts below. At this stage, Mr.Sunil K. Rana, appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 28th December, 1991. A period of more than 18 years is going to Criminal Revision No.994 of 1998 4 elapse. Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial.

He has committed no other offence before or after the occurrence. It is further submitted that statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27th November, 1997. At that time, his age was 42 years. Counsel has submitted that petitioner is now more than 55 years of age. Taking into consideration long pendency of the case, the fact that the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than 18 years, his age and antecedents, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars will serve no useful purpose, especially when counsel for the petitioner has offered to compensate the family of the deceased. In these circumstances, sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded upon the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC and sentence of three months awarded under Section 279 IPC is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner is stated to have undergone about twenty four days of his actual sentence.

The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited shall be disbursed by the trial Court to the legal heirs of the deceased Sunil Kumar. However, in case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. February 5, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE