KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) MAZID son of Badal was named as accused in case FIR No. 131 dated 11.04.1988 registed at Police Station Sadar Palwal under Section 279/304-A IPC. It was stated by the complainant Lala Ram that he is resident of village Gudrana and do labour work. On the day of occurrence, he along with Dalip son of Kishan was going towards jungal and at about 7.45 a.m., he saw Narain Singh, who was taking his cattle for drinking water. Meanwhile, Sita Ram and Ram Chand also came. At that moment, offending truck No. DLL-7295 came in a rash and neglignet manner from the side of village Sarai and due to the high speed, driver of the truck lost control and truck hit Narain Singh and Narain Singh came under the front wheel of the driver side of the truck. It is stated that Narain Singh died at the spot instantaneously. It is further stated that buffalo of Narain Singh also received injuries. On the statement of Ex. P-1 of Lala Ram, case was registered. Truck was also taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.P-2. Lala Ram had appeared as PW-1 whereas other eye witnesses were Dalip PW-3 and Sita Ram PW-4. Rajinder Singh appeared as PW-2, Dr. K.C. Goel as PW-5, Dinesh Kumar, Photographer as PW-6 and Munshi Ram, MHC as PW-7.
(2.) TWO Courts below have relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Lala Ram, PW-3 Dalip and PW-4 Sita Ram and held that even if there are little variations, testimony is trustworthy and aspire confidence. Mr. Pawan Girdhar appearing for the petitioner has relied upon State of Karnataka v. Satish, 1988(8) Supreme Court Cases 493 to state that high speed in itself will not constitute rash and negligent driving. Mr. Girdhar has relied upon Tarsem Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 605 and Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 927 to contend that in the present case, investigating officer has not been examined, therefore, visual observations regarding position of vehicle at the spot are to be proved. Therefore, non-examination of the investigating officer will entitle the petitioner to acquittal. This contention of the petitioner, in each and every case, cannot be accepted. In the present case, prosecution witnesses have been examined. Where the witnesses are relable, simply because investigating officer has not been examined, their testimony cannot be thrown over the board. In each case, Court has to formulate its opinion taking into account testimony of witnesses and observations of the investigating officer. Two Courts below have returned findings of fact and have appreciated the evidence of the witnesses. In the revisional Court, I cannot re-evaluate their evidence. At this stage, Mr. Girdhar has made an alternate submission to contend that in the present case, occurrence has taken place in the year 1988. A period of about 20 years is going to elapse. It is further stated that petitioner has committed no other effence in the last 20 years. He has further contended that head note of the trial Court judgment reveals that age of the petitioner was 25 years and after 20 years, he is 45 years old and have fastened himself with many liabilities fo familiy. His children are of marriageable age. Sending the petitioner behind the bars after 20 years will bring stigma and affect the matrimonial prospects of the children of the petitioner. Mr. Girdhar has further stated that family of the petitioner has been compensated as learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 96000/-.
(3.) TAKING into account protracted trial, antecedents of the accused and the fact that he has undergone about 15 days after his conviction, no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars. However, family of the deceased can be compensated. Therefore, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 35000/- and the same be disburded to the legal heirs of the deceased. The sentence of fine shall be deposited with trial Court within three months from today. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. Petition dismissed.;