RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Kishan petitioner was convicted under Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was further convicted under Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months vide order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, on July 8/9th, 1992. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate, was dismissed vide order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on Oct. 12, 1993. Aggrieved against the orders of the Court below, the petitioner filed the present revision petition in which notice was issued only for quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner and secondly to consider whether benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, can be granted to the petitioner or not.

(2.) In brief, facts of the prosecution case are that on April 16, 1985, at about 6.30 p.m., Shri Ram PW employed with M/s. Shankra Machine Tools Factory, Bahadurgarh was returning from his duty on a bicycle. As he (Siri Ram) reached near the crossing of old Bus Stand, Bahadurgarh, a car bearing registration No. DEB 404 came from Rohtak side. The said car was being driven rashly and negligently and at a very high speed by the petitioner and struck against Mohinder Singh who was coming on a cycle from the side of the main bazar. As a result of the said accident, Mohinder Singh received injuries which subsequently, proved fatal and he died on the next date of the accident. The petitioner was challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced by the Courts below as stated above.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner is a first offender and he is the only bread winner of his family consisting of four minor children and that he may be released on probation of good conduct. From the evidence on the record, it is quite apparent that after the accident, the petitioner did not care to stop his car. Neither, he made any effort to take the injured to the hospital, nor made any other effort to render help to the deceased.