SOBIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner -convict against the judgment of conviction dated 8.2.2012 and order of sentence dated 9.2.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin vide which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 -A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5000 for the offence punishable under Section 304 -A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 9.8.2005 at about 11.30 AM Amit Sharma alongwith Amit, Prem Parkash, Yadwinder, Gaurav Singla and Dhiraj was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. HR -38N -3003. On the asking of driver and conductor of the bus, they occupied the roof of the bus. However, present petitioner -convict who was driver of the bus, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when they reached near turning of village Ruparka, petitioner had taken a sudden turn due to which Gaurav fell down and sustained multiple injuries. They raised noise and petitioner stopped the bus. Gaurav became unconscious and the blood was oozing out of his ear. Firstly, he was taken to Govt. Hospital, Hathin and thereafter to Diamond Hospital, Palwal and from there he was taken to Sunflag Hospital, Faridabad. Later on, he succumbed to the injuries.

(2.) PETITIONER -convict faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court as afore -mentioned. Appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned appellate Court.

(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner -convict that he has been facing trial for the last about eight years. It is also contended that he has already undergone more than six months of the sentence awarded. It is further contended that he is not a previous convict and even injured died after 6 -7 months of receiving the injuries. It is further contended that petitioner is having small children to look after and that he is not involved in any other case. Hence, it is contended that he be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or his sentence be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.