Santosh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondent. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment, dated 25.8.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction, dated

21.4.2011, and the order of sentence, dated 23.4.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, was dismissed.

2. In a nut-shell the case of the prosecution is that Anil Kumar Sahni, Vidhya Parkash Sahni, Kashmiri Lal, Chandbir and Maan Singh had sustained injuries in an accident. In his statement to the police, Anil Kumar Sahni, Advocate, stated that on 5.11.2005, he along with his father, Vidhya Parkash Sahni, and Kashmiri Lal, Chandbir and Maan Singh (all Advocates), was going towards the Court in his car bearing Registration No. CRR No. 2677 OF 2012 (O&M) 2 HR-05P-0969. At about 10.30 a.m., when he reached near the Mini Secretariat and took turn on the left side towards the Courts, then a car bearing Registration No. HR-09F-0071, driven in a rash or negligent manner by Santosh (petitioner), came from Model Town side and while coming on the wrong side, hit the car driven by the complainant on the left side, as a result of which the car of the complainant turned turtle and all the five occupants of the car received serious injuries. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 337, IPC, but after receipt of the reports of X-ray examination and death report of Vidhya Parkash Sahni from PGIMER, Chandigarh, the offences punishable under Section 338 and 304-A, IPC, were added. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for prosecution of the petitioner and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC, were framed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined injured persons, namely, Maan Singh, Kashmiri Lal and Anil Kumar as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively; HC Sanjay Kumar, Photographer, as PW-4; Vidhya Sagar, Advocate, as PW-5, who identified the dead body of the deceased; Dr. H.S. Sehgal as PW-6, who proved the MLRs Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C, ruqa Ex. PW6/D sent by him and endorsement Ex. PW6/E made by him; SI Dilbag Singh, Investigating Officer, as PW-7; Dr. Iqbal Singh as PW-8, who proved X-ray report Ex. PW8/A and X-ray films Ex. PW8/G of Chandbir, X-ray report Ex. PW8/H of Maan Singh, X-ray report Ex. PW8/I and X-ray films Ex. PW8/J to Ex. PW8/O of Kashmiri Lal injured; EHC Ved Pal, Motor Mechanic as PW-9, who CRR No. 2677 OF 2012 (O&M) 3 proved his reports Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B; Dr. Piyush Sharma as PW-10, who proved the PMR, Ex. PW10/A. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by Court order, dated

28.3.2011, as the prosecution had failed to examine the remaining witnesses despite last opportunity.

4. The statement of the petitioner in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded innocence. No evidence in defence was adduced despite opportunities afforded by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to undergo the imprisonments as follows:- Section Punishment 279, IPC. Simple imprisonment for three months. 337, IPC. Simple imprisonment for three months. 338, IPC. Simple imprisonment for one year. 304-A, IPC. Simple imprisonment for two years and fine of `5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Session at Karnal. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.8.2012. The judgments of the two Courts below are under challenge before this court by way of the instant criminal revision petition.

5. At the time of preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition on merits, however, the CRR No. 2677 OF 2012 (O&M) 4 notice of motion was issued with regard to the consideration of quantum of sentence only.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the benefit of short-comings in the prosecution case was not extended to the petitioner while holding him guilty, but keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the benefit should be extended to the petitioner by releasing him on probation. In support of his contention, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was aged about 29 years only and he has to support several members of his family. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither required nor involved in any other case, therefore, he can be dealt with leniently.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the material available on record.

9. Though the notice of motion was issued for consideration of quantum of sentence only, but to satisfy the conscious of this Court, I have re-appraised the two judgments and find that the learned Courts below have rightly returned the verdict of guilt against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC. However, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that two vehicles had colluded with each other, some benefit deserves to be extended to the petitioner while awarding the substantive sentence. It is also taken into consideration that the petitioner is a young man of 29 years and CRR No. 2677 OF 2012 (O&M) 5 has a clean record. He is neither required nor involved in any other case. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 338, IPC, and simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC, without there being any change in the quantum of fine and the sentences of imprisonment awarded by the learned two Courts below for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

10. With the above modifications in the quantum of sentence, the present criminal revision petition is disposed of. October 9, 2012 Pkapoor (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE