S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) CHIEF Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, vide his order dated January 2, 1993, convicted the petitioner under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was further sentenced under Section 304-A of the Code and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to the further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24.8.1993 while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 1-1/2 years RI to one year R.I. under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the court's below, the petitioner filed this revision petition, which was admitted only qua quantum of sentence to be awarded to the petitioner and also to consider the question whether benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be granted to him or not.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.10.1989 at about 8 a.m. Balraj and Dushyant, students, were going to D.A.V. School on a cycle. Dushyant was sitting on the carrier of the cycle whereas Balraj was driving the cycle. When they came near Marchal Hair Dresser's shop on Khandsa Road, Gurgaon truck No. HRU-468 driven by the petitioner came from the opposite side. The truck was being driven at a high speed rashly and negligently and hit the cycle of Balraj. As a result of the said impact, Dushyant fell down on the road side and was crushed underneath the truck whereas Balraj fell down on the left side of the road. Case was registered against the petitioner on the statement of Balraj PW. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned, tried and convicted as indicated above. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is not a previous convict and is the only bread winner of his family and may be released on probation of Good Conduct. In the instant case, the petitioner is responsible for the fatal accident in which Dushyant, student of 6th class, was crushed to death because of the negligence of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was driving the truck in question rashly, negligently and at a high speed. The petitioner was expected to slow down his truck while approaching the city limits and particularly when students were going to the school. In my opinion it is not a fit case to grant benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner underwent agony of trial for about 3-1/2 years in the trial court and his appeal remained pending in the court of Sessions for about 7 months, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A of the Code is reduced from one year's R.I. to six months' R.I. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner under Section 304-A is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 5000/-. In case of non-payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo SI for three months. Sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 279 of the Code is also reduced from six months RI to three months RI. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the fine realised, the entire fine shall be paid as compensation to the parents of the deceased or in their absence to the other nearest legal heirs of the deceased.
(3.) EXCEPT with this modification in the sentences awarded to the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. Petition partly allowed.;