Criminal Revision No. 2387 of 2002 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 2387 of 2002

Date of decision: 26.02.2010

Tara Chand

..............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

................Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present:

Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

HARBANS LAL,J.

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2002

passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby

he dismissed the appeal filed by Tara Chand accused reducing sentence

under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by six months while

maintaining the sentence awarded under other Sections by the court of

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura who vide his

judgment/order of sentence dated 24.9.2001 had convicted and sentenced

the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in

default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6

months and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment

for 3 months and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

Criminal Revision No. 2387 of 2002 2

6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 of the Indian

Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 1 month and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code with

a further direction that the substantiative sentences shall run concurrently.

The facts in brief are that on 5.3.1994 Joginder Paul Grover

made statement before ASI Nirmal Singh in the terms that on that day at

about 3/3.15 A.M. he alongwith his wife Sushma Grover was travelling in

Maruti van bearing registration No. HR-13-0138 being driven by Mukhtiar

Mohmad from Delhi towards Goraya. When they were about 1 km short of

Octroi post, meanwhile a truck bearing registration No. JKU-2465 being

driven by Tara Chand accused in a rash and negligent manner came on high

speed and struck against their Maruti van. These vehicles had head on

collision. He, his wife and driver Mukhtiar Mohmad sustained injuries.

Later on, his wife as well as Mukhtiar Mohmad succumbed to the injuries.

On the basis of this statement, the case was registered. The accused was

arrested. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was laid in the

court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused.

The accused was charged under Sections 304-A/337/338/279 of

the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

After examining as many as six witnesses, the prosecution closed its

evidence.

When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused

denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution

evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication.

He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

Criminal Revision No. 2387 of 2002 3

After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record,

the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the

outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal which was

dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala with the

modification in sentence as noticed (supra). Being undaunted and

dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has

preferred this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides

pe