K.C. Puri, J. - (1.) THIS Court vide order dated 29.7.2011, passed the following order: - This revision petition is directed against the orders of the leaned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha dated 20.11.2006 and that of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 14.3.2011. Vide the impugned orders the petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 -1/2 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the findings has stated that his identity has not been established and while referring to the site plan has stated that the fault was of the deceased himself who was riding a scooter with a lot of material such as one plastic crate containing glasses, 5 tents, one big utensil and some crockery and, therefore, it can be inferred that he would not have been riding the scooter in a stable way and would thus have contributed to the accident. While making a strenuous reference to the site pan he has contended that the deceased was entering the main road from a side road whereas the petitioner was coming on the main road and thus the accident was caused primarily due to the negligence of the deceased himself. I have considered the arguments which have been raised before me. The prosecution case is that after the petitioner struck the scooter of the deceased from behind, he dragged the same to the extreme right hand side of the road and crushing and injuring some bye standers in the process. The petitioner himself received injuries. All the injured persons including the petitioner were taken to the hospital where the deceased breathed his last but the other injured persons including the petitioner survived. The injured Kartar Singh and his son Bahadur Singh thus had every occasion to see the petitioner as they were taken to the hospital together. In this view of the matter, the identity of the petitioner cannot be said to have been established when the injured person recognized him and identified him in the court as well. The next contention pertaining to negligence, if evaluated by perusing the site plan, also decimates the case of the petitioner. The deceased had come from the site of Galwati village link road and had already entered the main road and travelled thereupon for a considerable distance, which is evident from the location of point A as depicted in the site plan. The petitioner was driving the oil tanker and coming from the rear side and hit the scooter of the deceased and dragged him to the extreme right hand side. These facts speak for themselves and show that the petitioner was negligent and was instrumental in causing the accident. The findings of the courts below, therefore, on these counts cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the revision petition which merits dismissal. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is aged 30 years and has faced the trial for almost 10 years ever since the registration of the case, and that he was on bail throughout and had been pursuing his avocation of driving the vehicles and has not caused any other accident during this period and, therefore, a lenient view of the situation be taken. Issue notice of motion regarding sentence only for 17.11.2011.
(2.) IN view of the abovesaid order, the question left to be determined is only regarding the quantum of sentence. The petitioner has been awarded sentence of 1 -1/2 years under Section 304 -A IPC besides other sentences. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone incarnation for a period of 8 months and 29 days as on 11.11.2011. So, after considering the fact that occurrence relates to the year 2001, the sentence of the petitioner stands reduced to 1 year instead of 1 -1/2 years under Section 304 -A IPC. The remaining sentence of fine under Section 304 -A IPC and also under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC stand upheld. All the sentences to run concurrently.
(3.) THE petition stands disposed of.;