IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

261 Date of decision: 29.10.2025 RAM KUMAR ....Petitioner Versus State of HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Nishant Raj Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

1. Challenge in the instant revision petition is to the judgment dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 25.08.2015 rendered by Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Guhla, convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC has been dismissed.

2. Summarily, an FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, on account of an accident that took place on 15.03.2013 between a car, being driven by the accused-petitioner, and a bicycle. After investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the Court. Upon which charges were framed against the accused-petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. As many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, in order to prove its case. Thereafter, the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC whereby incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and pleaded false implication. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case, and accordingly convicted the petitioner-accused for an offence under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- concurrently.

5. Aggrieved accused-petitioner, approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby his appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated

14.08.2018.

6. Hence, the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel at the outset submits that the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition on merits and prays for extending the benefit of probation under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in view of the mitigating circumstances being that, the incident pertains to the year 2013; the petitioner is a seller; has already undergone 5 months and 26 days out of the sentence awarded; never misused the concession of bail and is first time offender, sole breadwinner, has a family to support, including his wife.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made, and submits that the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner on the evidence produced by the prosecution. He is however, unable to controvert the factum of petitioner never having misused the concession of bail. Therefore, prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

9. Heard and perused.

10. On the basis of evidence on record, it was found by the Courts below that the Swift car being driven by the accused-petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, had caused the accident and hit the accidental motor cycle frombehind. The prosecution version, apart from the ocular version of the witnesses, was also found to have been corroborated by the mechanical report regarding the damage caused to the offending car and the motor cycle. Thus, the Courts below have properly examined the evidence and rightly convicted the petitioner.

11. So far as the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner regarding extending him the benefit of probation, it would be apposite to make a reference to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which reads thus:

“4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithsta