Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar Garg vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 10 August, 2015
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
CRR No.3248 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.3248 of 2014 (O&M).
Decided on:-10.08.2015.
Suresh Kumar Garg. .........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another .........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
Present:- Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Narenderpal Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
HARI PAL VERMA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-31563-2014 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing the revision petition.
For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay of 133 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case The petitioner-complainant has filed the present revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC against the order of sentence dated 10.1.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal. YAG DUTT 2015.08.12 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3248 of 2014 -2-
Vide judgment dated 10.1.2014, the respondent No.2-accused was held guilty for the commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and was ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC i.e. total Rs.2,500/- vide separate order of even date.
Briefly stated, an F.I.R. No.295 dated 5.4.2009 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal against the respondent No.2-accused. He was charge-sheeted in the case on 18.1.2010 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on the allegations that on 4.4.2009 in the area of Karnal, he drove his vehicle bearing temporary No.HR-05X-6835 so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in the same manner caused simple as well as grievous injury to Keshav Garg and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The respondent No.2-accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. However, at subsequent stage of trial, he expressed his desire to confess his guilt and voluntarily got recorded his confessional statement admitting his guilt. Accordingly, on the basis of his confession, the respondent No.2 was held guilty and was sentenced in the aforementioned manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that though the respondent No.2 has confessed his guilt, but despite that, very YAG DUTT 2015.08.12 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3248 of 2014 -3- small amount of fine has been ordered to be paid. He further contends that apart from the fact that inadequate sentence has been awarded by the trial Court, even the fine has not been imposed rationally. The injured Keshav Garg, who is minor son of the petitioner-complainant, was a brilliant student and a good tennis player, but his career has been ruined. On account of injury suffered by him, said Keshav is still having the effect of injury and is being taken for consultation at Hospital in Mohali and he is still in Coma. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial Court has ignored the seriousness of the offence committed by respondent No.2 and he has been allowed to go only by imposing a fine of very meagre amount.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC are compoundable and learned trial Court has rightly awarded the fine as prescribed in the aforesaid Sections. He further submits that the trial Court is well within its competence to award imprisonment or fine or both and has adopted the mode of punishment of fine, imposed upon respondent No.2 in terms of the aforesaid provisions. He further submits that on account of injury caused to Keshav Garg, learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Tribunal'), on a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has already passed an award in favour of the injured-claimant on 17.1.2013.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone YAG DUTT 2015.08.12 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3248 of 2014 -4- through the paper book.
The provisions of Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC are reproduced as under:
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.--Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.--Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Vide award dated 17.1.2013, the Tribunal has granted the relief in the following terms:
"42. As a sequel to the above discussion, the petition is YAG DUTT 2015.08.12 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3248 of 2014 -5- allowed and a sum of Rs.25,09,924/- (Rs. Twenty five lacs nine thousand nine hundred and twenty four only) is awarded as compensation to the claimant. The claimant shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till the realization of whole of the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
43. In case of payment of compensation amount along with accrued interest, 50% of the whole awarded amount shall be released to him in cash and the remaining amount shall be invested for a period of fifteen years in the nationalized bank or any Government security in the name of the claimant. In any particular contingency or urgent need, the claimant shall be entitled to apply to the Court for withdrawal of the amount."
Considering the fact that the trial Court has passed the impugned order in consonance with the aforementioned provisions of law coupled with the fact that the Tribunal has already allowed the claim petition of the injured, no ground for enhancement of sentence is made out.
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
August 10, 2015 JUDGE
'Yag Dutt'
YAG DUTT
2015.08.12 17:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document