Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur whereby appeal preferred against the judgment dated 19.09.2002 passed by the learned JMIC, Batala convicting the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 13.11.1996, in a road accident, Shakuntala Devi and other persons, were injured when a bus driven by accused-petitioner had collided with a van in which they were travelling. On receipt of this information, the instant FIR was registered. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented. Upon which, the accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 279 /337/338/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined a total of 6 PWs. The statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and stated that in fact he is not responsible for this occurrence.

4. The trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established its case against the accused-petitioner and accordingly convicted him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with a fine of Rs. 200 under Section 279 IPC and 2 years under 304-A IPC alongwith a fine of Rs. 500. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 16.05.2007.

6. Hence, the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel at the outset would submit that the petitioner does not wish to challenge his conviction and prays for his release on probation in view of the peculiar facts being that, the incident pertains to the year 1996 and he has faced protracted trial for almost 27 years; has already undergone about 6 months and 4 days out of the sentence awarded; a first offender; has two children, wife and old parents and is the only breadwinner of his family. He is a government employee and on the verge of retirement. An amount of Rs.8,40,000/- was paid by in the MACT to the claimants. The petitioner is however willing to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to them. To buttress his submission, reliance is placed on Aitha Chander Rao vs. State of A.P., 1981 (Supp) SCC 17, A.P. Raju vs. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 385, Paul George vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 (4) SCC 185 and Tarlochan Singh vs. State of Punjab 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 909.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner on the evidence produced by the prosecution. However, on the above-stated grounds has no objection if the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed.

9. Heard and perused.

10. As per the testimony of PW-4, Shakuntla Devi and PW-5, Neelam Devi, the occupants of the van and injured in the said accident, that the bus was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The plea raised on the other hand by the petitioner by relying on mechanical examination of the bus and the statement of Nand Lal Fitter that the accident had taken place due to loosening of nutt affixed on tyroid end of the bus, which was not accepted by the trial Court inter alia on the ground that the brakes of bus were still functional, which could have been used to avert the accident. The judgment of conviction passed by trial Court as affirmed by lower