RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the statement made by Inderjit (complainant) PW-1, case FIR No. 485 dated 28.05.1989 was registered at police Station City, Panipat under Sections 279/304-A IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, case of the prosecution is that on the day of occurrence at 6.30 a.m. Inderjit (complainant) along with his brother Shori Lal aged 30-35 years was sleeping on the cot in street in front of his house. At that time, he and Gurdit Lal were having conversation in front of the nearby shop of Verma Tailors, when offending truck No. HYE-7455 loaded with sand was parked in the street. The accused petitioner, while reversing the truck in a rash and negligent manner, had crossed over the cot of Shori Lal. Resultantly, Shori Lal died at the spot. The petitioner was arrested on 28th May, 1989. Truck was also taken into possession. Prosecution examined Inderjit (complainant) as PW-1; Gurdit Lal as PW-2; Chaman Lal, Sub Inspector, investigating officer as PW-3. Mukhtiar Singh, Head Constable appeared as PW-4; Dr. Arun Sehgal, who conducted autopsy, appeared as PW-5 and Madho Khanna Photographer appeared as PW-6.

(3.) MR . Sukhwinder Singh Nara at the outset has stated that in view of the findings returned by the trial Court, he will not assail petitioner's conviction and will confine his arguments regarding reduction in sentence only. He stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re- evaluated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has undergone about two months as he was convicted on 15th July, 1997 and he was taken into custody and was granted bail by this Court on 1st September, 1997 and furnished bail bonds some time later. It has been further submitted that learned Motor Accident Claim tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- along with interest as compensation. This fact has been noticed in the order of admission of the present revision petition. It has been further stated that the petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of occurrence and now he is more than 40 years of age. He got married during pendency of revision petition and have four children. He is sole earner of the family. During the last 19 years, he has fastened himself with many liabilities of the family. Therefore, in view of the protracted trial, he prays that his sentence be reduced to already under gone. It has been further stated that in the last 19 years, he has committed no other offence.