Tulsa Ram vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that no appeal lies against the orders passed by the courts below and only revision lies to this court. On the oral request made by the learned counsel, this appeal is treated as a revision. The Registry shall make the changes accordingly.

Tulsa Ram, petitioner, was convicted u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code, by the trial Magistrate, vide order dated 14th October, 1992 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also convicted u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, vide order dated 9th July, 1993, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

This revision filed against the orders passed by the courts below was admitted only with regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioner as well as for consideration of the question of grant of probation to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner while driving truck No. DIL 2156 rashly and negligently struck against the three-wheeler bearing registration No. HRT 6778 driven by Jai Parkash. As a result of the said collision, the three-wheeler turned turtle. Jai Parkash and Gomati died on the spot, whereas Rameshwar, another passenger, died in the hospital. The truck driver and the cleaner of the truck ran away from the spot leaving behind the truck and did not render any help whatsoever to the injured.

In these circumstances, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner that he is a first offender and is the only bread-winner of the family has not persuaded me to grant benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant.

The accident took place as far back as on 29th of May, 1988. The petitioner underwent agony of trial for about four years in the trial court. His appeal also remained pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, for about 8 months. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about two months.

Taking into consideration all these facts including that the petitioner underwent agony of trial for considerable period, his sentence of imprisonment u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. In default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentence of imprisonment and that of fine imposed by the courts below to the petitioner u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code is, however, maintained. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently. Out of fine, if realised, Rs. 5,000/- each shall be paid to the nearest legal heirs of the three deceased in this case.

Except with this modification, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.