Bikkar Singh v. State of Punjab

::1:: INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH

(201) CRR-1175-2008o(O&M) Dat o!"oD #$%$!&'o07(02(2025 Bikker Singh ... .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM'o HON)B*EoMR(oJU+TICEooJA+JITo+INGHoBEDI Present: Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab. **** JA+JITo+INGHoBEDI,oJ(o The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 01.05.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, has been dismissed.

¶2The FIR in the present case came to be registered on

27.07.2003. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 16.09.2006 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar. The Appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was ::2:: dismissed on 01.05.2008. The instant revision petition was filed on

08.07.2008 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 21 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

¶3The Prosecution version is that on 17.07.2003 Н. С. Harjit Singh was posted at police Post City Nakodar where Sukhdev Mitter Chopra got recorded his statement Ex, PA. He stated that he was a retired employee of the Municipal Council. He had six daughters and all were married. As a routine, he had gone on a morning walk along with his wife Pushpa Chopra. His wife was ahead of him and at about 4.30 a.m., when they reached near the Purani Kanda Octroi. Shanker Road, Nakodar, one truck bearing No. PB. 2J?A?9395 was seen coming at a high speed without blowing any horn. It struck his wife from behind due to which she received grievous injuries and died at the spot. The truck driver ran away from the spot after leaving the truck and he could identify him if produced before him. In the meantime, his son in law Manoj Kumar also came at the spot. He stated that this accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. On the basis of this Statement the FIR was registered. The truck was taken into possession by the police. The rough site plan of the place of accident was prepared. Post?mortem of the dead body of Pushpa Chopra was got conducted. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in ::3::

¶4On finding a primaofacie case to be made out against the accused, charge under Sections 279 and 304?A IPC was framed. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶5To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Mitter Chopra (PW?1) who deposed that on 17.07.2003 as a routine, he had gone on a morning walk along with his wife Pushpa Chopra. His wife was ahead of him and at about 4.30 a.m., when they reached near Purani Kanda Octroi. Shanker Road, Nakodar, one truck bearing No. PB?2J?A?9395 was seen coming at a high speed without blowing any horn and hit his wife from behind due to which she received grievous injuries and died at the spot. He identified the accused present in the court. He proved his statement Ex. PA, which was read over and explained to him and after admitting the same as correct he signed the same. He also proved memo Ex. PB, vide which the truck was taken into possession of the police. Dr. Varinder Pal Jagat (PW2) deposed that on 17.7.2003, he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Pushpa Chopra deceased and found the following injuries: ?

1.oLaceratedowoundo20ocmoxo15ocmooverofrontoofoleftothigh. Underolineosoftotissueoskinomuscleowereobadlyolaceratedo crushedounderlineoboneowasofractured.o!lottedobloodowas present.

2.oLaceratedowoundso1"cmoxo12cmooveroleftokneeounderlineosoft tissueomusclesovesselsowereobadlyocrushed.oUnderlineoboneowas fractured.o!lottedobloodowasopresent. ::4::

3.oLaceratedowoundo30cmoxo10cmooverofrontoofoleftoloweroleg underlineosoftotissueomusclesowereobadlyocrushedo&olacerated underlineoboneowasocrushed.oClottedobloodowasopresent.

4.oLaceratedowoundo10cmoxo8cmooverodorsumoofoleftofoot.oSoft tissueomusclesowereolaceratedo&ocrushed.oUnderlineoboneowas fractured.

5.oLaceratedowoundo15cmoxo10cmopresentooverorightoknee. Underlineosoftotissueomusclesovesselsowereobadlyolaceratedo& crushed.oUnderlineoboneowasofractured.

6.oLaceratedowoundo10cmoxo8cmopresentooverodorsumooforight foot.oUnderlineosoftotissueomusclesowereolacerated.oUnderline bonesowasofracturedo&olacerated.oClottedobloodowasopresent.

7.oLaceratedowoundo8cmoxo4cmopresentooverogenetiaoonothe sectionoonotheosectionounderlineosoftotissueowasolacerated.

8.oAbrasionso20cmoxo10cmopresentooveroloweropartoofofrontoof abdomenoonotheosectionounderolineoruptured.oUnderlineoportion ofogutowasocrushedo&olaceratedoabdominalowasofulloofoblood. Heodeposedothatoallotheoinjuriesowereoante-mortemoinonatureo& causeoofodeathoinohisoopinionowasoneurogenico&ohemorrhagicoshockodueoto theoinjuriesowhichowereosufficientotoocauseodeathoinotheoordinaryocourseoof nature.oHeoprovedocarbonocopyoofotheopostoMortemoReportoEx.oPW/A. ManojoKumaro(PW3)odeposedothatoono17.07.2003owhenoheowas goingotoohisoshopoatovillageoShankar,oheosawohisofather-in-lawonearoold OctroioPostoShankeroRoadowhereotheodeadobodyoofohisomother-in-law PushpaoChopraowasolying.oHeodeposedothatohisofather-in-lawotoldohimothat theotruckodriverohadocausedotheoaccidento&othereoafteroheoleftotheospotofor ::5:: informing the police. He deposed that he identified the dead body and inquest report Ex. PW3/A was also signed by him. He also proved recovery memo Ex. PB vide which the truck was taken into possession by the police. Amit Kumar (PW4) proved photographs and negatives Ex.P1 to Ex. P4 which were taken into possession of the police vide recovery memo Ex. PW4/A signed by him. ASI Harjit Singh (PW5) the investigation Officer of the case, deposed that on 17.07.2003 he recorded the statement of Sukhdev Mitter Chopra Ex. PA and after making his endorsement Ex. PW5/A it was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PW5/B was recorded. He also prepared the inquest report Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that after the post?mortem of the dead body, parcel containing the clothes of the dead body were taken into possession of the police vide recovery memo Ex. PW5/C. He proved recovery memo Ex. PB vide which the truck was taken into possession of the police and recovery memo Ex. PW5/D vide which driving licence and registration certificate of the truck were taken into possession. He also proved the rough site plan of the place of accident Ex.PW5/E and also identified the signatures of SHO Mandeep Singh on the challan. Constable Des Raj (PW6) proved the mechanical test report of the truck Ex.PW6/A which bore his signatures. Thereafter, the A.P.P. closed the prosecution evidence after tendering into evidence copy of the driving licence ex. PX and registration certificate of the truck EX.PY. ::6::

¶6The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence.

¶7Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2006 as under:? O"" &# o-&. / + &t &# oRI0+I F$& RI0+Io$&o. "a-1to!" + #t$!& 2a34 &to!"o"$& 304?A IPC RI for 02 years Rs.4,000/? SI for 01 month 279oIPC RI for 06 months Rs.1,000/? SI for 01 month

¶8The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 01.05.2008.

¶9The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.

¶10During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated

25.09.2008.

¶11The learned counsel for the accused?petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. He contends that the identification of the accused?petitioner has not been ::7:: established as per law and the first time identification in the Court has little evidentiary value. There is no evidence of any rash and negligent driving other than the statement of complainant?Sukhdev Mitter Chopra and there is no other independent witness of the occurrence. Therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. In addition, he contends that in case this Court was to come to a finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, then keeping in view the fact that the occurrence was of the year 2003 and the case had come up for final hearing now after a gap of 21 years, the accused?petitioner may be released on probation subject to payment of compensation.

¶12The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has referred to the custody certificate dated 12.12.2024 of the accused? petitioner, which is already on record. As per the said custody certificate, the accused?petitioner has undergone 06 months and 07 days out of his substantive sentence. While referring to the record, he contends that the prosecution witnesses had deposed consistently as to the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. There were no discrepancies in their statements as has been sought to be argued. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶13I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

¶14As regards the identification of the accused is concerned, no doubt his name is not mentioned in the statement of the complainant Ex.PA, ::8:: butoheohasospecificallyostatedothatoheocouldoidentifyotheodriveroofotheovehicle ifoproducedobeforeohimoandowhenoheoappearedoinotheowitnessoboxoasoPW1ohe againospecificallyodeposedothatotheoaccusedopresentoinotheoCourtowasodriving theotruckoandoafteroleavingotheotruck,oheoranoaway.oWhenotheodriveroofothe offendingovehicleofledoawayofromotheospotoafterotheoaccident,obutois identifiedoinoCourt,omereoabsenceoofooanoidentificationoparadeowouldonotobe fatalotootheoprosecutionocase.

¶15Inotheocontextoofoanoidentificationoparade,otheoHon'bleoSupreme CourtoinoRavioKapuroVersusoStateoofoRajasthan,o2012(4)oR.C.R.o(Criminal) 245,oheldoasounder:- o"oo32.oInotheopresentocase,otheoaccusedohadobeenoseenobyo PW2oandoPW4.oInoaddition,otheyohadoalsoostatedothatothe passersbyohadoinformedothemothatotheoaccusedowasodriving theobusoand,oinofact,oheowasotheoowneroofotheobus.oOneofact ofothisostatementoisoestablishedothatotheobusoinoquestionowas givenoonosuperdariotootheoaccused.oItoisoalsoostatedobyothese personsothatoafterotheyohadoseenotheoaccused,oheohadorun awayofromotheoplaceowhereoheoparkedotheovehicle.oThese witnessesoalsooidentifiedotheoaccusedoinotheoCourt.oItoisonot theocaseoofotheoaccusedobeforeousothatoheohadobeenoshown tootheowitnessesopriorotoohisobeingoidentifiedoinotheoCourt. TheoCourtoidentificationoitselfoisoaogoodoidentificationoin theoeyesoofolaw.oItoisonotoalwaysonecessaryothatoitomustobe precededobyotheotestoidentificationoparade.oItowilloalways dependouponotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofoaogivenocase. Inooneocase,oitomayonotoevenobeonecessaryotooholdotheotest identificationoparadeowhileoinotheoother,oitomayobeoessential ::9:: toodooso.oThus,onoostraightjacketoformulaocanobeostatedoin thisoregard.oWeomayoreferotooaojudgmentoofothisoCourtoinothe caseoofoShyamaloGhoshov.oStateoofoWestoBengalo[2012o(6) SCALEo381]owhereinothisoCourtohasoheldothatotheoCodeoof CriminaloProcedure,o1973o(foroshorto"CriminaloProcedure Code) o does o not o oblige o the o investigating o agency o to necessarilyoholdotheotestoidentificationoparadeowithout exception.oTheoCourtoheldoasoundero:o "55.oOnobehalfoofoaccusedoShyamal,oitowasoalso contendedo thato despiteo theo identificationo parade beingoheld,oheowasonotoidentifiedobyotheowitnesses andoalsoothatotheoidentificationoparadeohadobeen heldoafteroundueodelayoandoevenowhenodetailsoabout theoincidentohadoalreadyobeenotelecastedoonothe television.oThus,otheoCourtoshouldonotorelyouponothe identificationoofotheoaccusedopersonsoasotheopersons involvedoinotheocommissionoofotheocrimeoandothey shouldobeogivenotheobenefitoofodoubt.

56.oTheowholeoideaoofoaoTestoIdentificationoParadeois thatowitnessesowhooclaimotoohaveoseenotheoculpritsoat theotimeoofooccurrenceoareotooidentifyothemofromothe midstoofootheropersonsowithoutoanyoaidooroanyoother source.oTheotestoisodoneotoocheckouponotheiroveracity. Inootherowords,otheomainoobjectoofoholdingoan identificationoparade,oduringotheoinvestigationostage, isotootestotheomemoryoofotheowitnessesobasedoupon firstoimpressionoandoalsootooenableotheoprosecution toodecideowhetheroallooroanyoofothemocouldobeocited ::10::

57.oItoisoequallyocorrectothatotheoCriminaloProcedure Code odoesonotoobligeotheoinvestigatingoagencyoto necessarily o hold o the o Test o Identification o Parade. Failureotooholdotheotestoidentificationoparadeowhile inopoliceocustody,odoesonotobyoitselforenderothe evidenceoofoidentificationoinocourtoinadmissibleoor unacceptable. o There o have o been o numerous o cases whereotheoaccusedoisoidentifiedobyotheowitnessesoin theocourtoforotheofirstotime.oOneoofotheoviewsotakenois thatoidentificationoinocourtoforotheofirstotimeoalone mayonotoformotheobasisoofoconviction,obutothisoisonot an o absolute o rule. o The o purpose o of o the o Test IdentificationoParadeoisotootestoandostrengthenothe trustworthinessoofothatoevidence.oItoisoaccordingly consideredoaosafeoruleoofoprudenceotoogenerallyolook forocorroborationoofotheoswornotestimonyoofothe witnessesoinocourtoasotootheoidentityoofotheoaccused whooareostrangersotoothem,oinotheoformoofoearlier identificationoproceedings.oThisoruleoofoprudenceois, howeverosubjectedotooexceptions.oReferenceocanobe madeotoo MunshioSinghoGautamov.oStateoofoM.P. 2005(1) o RCR o (Criminal) o 361: o 2005(1) o Apex Criminalo202:[(2005)9oSCCo631],oSheooShankar SinghovoStateoofoJharkhandoandoAnr.,o2011(2)oRCR (Criminal)o634o:o2011(2)oRecentoApexoJudgments (R.A.J.)o452:o[(2011)3oSCCo654].

58.oIdentificationoParadeoisoaotooloofoinvestigation andoisousedoprimarilyotoostrengthenotheocaseoofothe prosecutionoonotheooneohandoandotoomakeodoubly sureothatopersonsonamedoaccusedoinotheocaseoare ::11:: actually o the o culprits. o The o Identification o Parade primarilyobelongsotootheostageoofoinvestigationobyothe police.oTheofactothatoaoparticularowitnessohasobeen ableotooidentifyotheoaccusedoatoanoidentification paradeoisoonlyoaocircumstanceocorroborativeoofothe identificationoinocourt.oThus,oitoisoonlyoaorelevant considerationowhichomayobeoexaminedobyotheocourt in o view o of o other o attendant o circumstances o and corroborativeoevidenceowithoreferenceotootheofactsoof aogivenocase."

33.oInoouroconsideredoview,oitowasonotonecessaryotooholdothe testoidentificationoparadeoofotheoappellantoforotwooreasons. Firstly,otheoappellantowasoalreadyoknownotootheopassersby whoohadorecognizedohimowhileodrivingotheobusoandohad statedohisonameoand,osecondly,oheowasodulyoseen,othough foroaoshortobutoreasonableoperiod,owhenoafteroparkingothe bus,oheogotodownofromotheobusoandoranoaway.o [Emphasisosupplied]

16.o SukhdevoMitteroChopra,otheocomplainantoofotheocase,owhen appearedoinotheowitnessoboxoasoPW1oprovedotheoprosecutionocaseothatoatothe timeoofotheoaccident,otheoaccusedowasodrivingotheooffendingovehicleoandothis accidentotookoplaceodueotoohisorashoandonegligentodriving.oNooenmityohas beenosuggestedooroprovedobyotheoaccusedoforohisofalseoimplication.oTheovery factothatotheoaccusedostruckotheodeceasedofromobehindoitselfoshowsothatohe wasodrivingotheotruckorashlyoandonegligently.oInothisocontext,otheoHon'ble ::12:: SupremeoCourtoinoRavioKapuroVersusoStateoofoRajasthan,o2012(4)oR.C.R. (Criminal)o245,oheldoasounder:- "11.o'Negligence'omeansoomissionotoodoosomethingowhichoa reasonable o and o prudent o person o guided o by o the considerationsowhichoordinarilyoregulateohumanoaffairs would o do o or o doing o something o which o a o prudent o and reasonableopersonoguidedobyosimilaroconsiderationsowould notodo.oNegligenceoisonotoanoabsoluteotermobutoisoaorelative one;oitoisoratheroaocomparativeoterm.oItoisodifficultotoostate withoprecisionoanyomathematicallyoexactoformulaobyowhich negligenceoorolackoofoitocanobeoinfalliblyomeasuredoinoa givenocase.oWhetherothereoexistsonegligenceoperoseoorothe courseoofoconductoamountsotoonegligenceowillonormally dependouponotheoattendingoandosurroundingofactsoand circumstancesowhichohaveotoobeotakenointooconsideration byotheoCourt.oInoaogivenocase,oevenonotodoingowhatooneowas oughtotoodoocanoconstituteonegligence.o

¶12oThe o Court o has o to o adopt o another o parameter, o i.e., 'reasonableocare'oinodeterminingotheoquestionoofonegligence orocontributoryonegligence.oTheodoctrineooforeasonable careoimposesoanoobligationooroaodutyouponoaopersono(for exampleoaodriver)otoocareoforotheopedestrianoonotheoroad andothisodutyoattainsoaohigherodegreeowhenotheopedestrian happenotoobeochildrenoofotenderoyears.oItoisoaxiomaticotoosay thatowhileodrivingoaovehicleoonoaopublicoway,othereoisoan implicitodutyocastoonotheodriversotooseeothatotheirodriving doesonotoendangerotheolifeoofotheorightousersoofotheoroad, mayobeoeitherovehicularousersooropedestrians.oTheyoare expectedotootakeosufficientocareotooavoidodangerotooothers.o ::13::

13.oTheootheroprincipleothatoisopressedoinoaidobyotheocourts inosuchocasesoisotheodoctrineooforesoipsaoloquitur.oThis doctrineoservesotwoopurposeso–ooneothatoanoaccidentomay byoitsonatureobeomoreoconsistentowithoitsobeingocausedoby negligenceoforowhichotheooppositeopartyoisoresponsibleothan byoanyootherocausesoandothatoinosuchoaocase,otheomereofact ofotheoaccidentoisoprimaofacieoevidenceoofosuchonegligence. Secondly,oitoisotooavoidohardshipoinocasesowhereothe claimantoisoableotooproveotheoaccidentobutocannotoprove howotheoaccidentooccurred.oTheocourtsohaveoalsooapplied theoprincipleooforesoipsaoloquituroinocasesowhereonoodirect evidenceowasobroughtoonorecord.oTheoActoitselfocontainsoa provisionowhichoconcernsowithotheoconsequencesoofodriving dangerouslyoalikeotheoprovisionoinotheoIndianoPenaloCode thatotheovehicleoisodrivenoinoaomannerodangerousotoopublic life.oWhereoaopersonodoesosuchoanooffenceoheoisopunishedoas perotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono184oofotheoAct.oTheocourts haveoalsootakenotheoconceptoofo'culpableorashness'oand 'culpableonegligence'ointooconsiderationoinocasesooforoad accidents. o 'Culpable o rashness' o is o acting o with o the consciousnessothatomischievousoandoillegaloconsequences mayofollowobutowithotheohopeothatotheyowillonotoandooften with o the o belief o that o the o actor o has o taken o sufficient precautionsotoopreventotheirohappening.oTheoimputability arises o from o acting o despite o consciousness o (luxuria). 'Culpableonegligence'oisoactingowithoutotheoconsciousness thatotheoillegaloandomischievousoeffectowillofollow,obutoin circumstancesowhichoshowothatotheoactorohasonotoexercised theocautionoincumbentouponohimoandothatoifoheohad,ohe wouldohaveohadotheoconsciousness.oTheoimputabilityoarises fromotheoneglectoofocivicodutyoofocircumspection.oInosuchoa ::14:: caseotheomereofactoofoaccidentoisoprimaofacieoevidenceoof such o negligence. o This o maxim o suggests o that o on o the circumstancesoofoaogivenocaseotheoresospeaksoandois eloquentobecauseotheofactsostandounexplained,owithothe resultothatotheonaturaloandoreasonableoinferenceofromothe facts,onotoaoconjecturaloinference,oshowsothatotheoactois attributableotoosomeoperson'sonegligentoconduct.o[Ref. JusticeoRajeshoTandon'so'AnoExhaustiveoCommentaryoon MotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988'o(FirstoEdition,o2010].o

¶17Inoviewoofotheoaboveodiscussion,oIofindonooinfirmityoinothe judgmentsoofotheoTrialoCourtoasowelloasoofotheoloweroAppellateoCourt. Resultantly,otheopresentorevisionopetitionostandsodismissed.

¶18oAsoregardsotheoimpositionoofosentence,oitomayobeopointedoout thatothisoCourtoinoGurmukhoSinghoVs.oStateoofoPunjaboCRRoNo.2168-2014 Decidedoono13.12.2023oheldoasounder:- "o21.oThusotwooparallelothreadsoareo: a. Courts o should o normally o avoid o showing o undue o sympathyotootheo accusedobyoimposingoinadequate sentenceoasotheosameoisoharmfulotoo theo justiceosystem o; and b. TheoSupremeoCourtohasorepeatedlyoconsideredothe factothato ordealoofofacingopangsoofoprolongedotrialoneeds toobeo consideredo whileodecidingoadequacyoofosen-tenceoinotheomattersopertainingotoo offence o punishable underoSectiono304-AoIPC.o Where o the o accused o ::15:: hasofacedotheoprolongedotrialorunningointoomoreothan aodecadeo beforeoitoisofinallyoconcludedobyotheoHighoCourt orotheoSupremeo CourtoandobothotheoCourtsofoundothatothe victimoneedsotoobeo compensatedoadequately,otheotime spentoinotheolisobyoanoaccusedoando compensationotoothe victimocanoformorelevantoconsiderationsoforo reduc-tionoinosentence.

22.o Inotheopresentocaseotheopresentorevisionoisopendingo considerationoforolastonineoyears.oFIRorelatesotoothe yearo2007.oTheo petitioner o was o granted o suspension o of sentenceoono27.10.2014ooafteroheoexpressedohisoreadiness toocompensateotheovictimobyopayingo Rs.1.00 o lac. o The aforesaidoamountostandsopaid.oTheoquestionois,o having paidocompensationoasoperotheoordersoofothisoCourto9oyearso back,oshouldotheopetitionerobeoaskedotoogoobackobe-hindobars?oItoisoino these o mitigating o circumstances thatothisoCourtofindsoitoappropriateotoo followo theo or-dersopassedobyoApexoCourtoinoK.oJagdish'socaseo(supra)o asotheofactsoinotheopresentocaseoareoalmostosimilaroto thoseobeforeo theoApexoCourt.oIomayohastenlyoaddohere thatotheopetitioneroiso claimedotoohaveopaidocompensa-tionoandoneitherotheoStateonorotheo victim o has o agitated againstotheoorderopassedobyothisocourto askingotheopeti-tioner o to o deposit o compensation o and o granting o him o suspensionoofosentence.

23.o Theopetitioneroisoaofirstotimeooffenderoandohasonoopast criminalo recordooroantecedents.oHeoisonotoreportedoto haveoeveromisusedo concessionoofobail/suspensionoof sentence.oHeohasoundergoneo abouto6omonthsooutoofosub- ::16:: stantiveosentenceoofo1oyearoandohaso already o faced o proE tractedotrialoforolasto1&oyears. 2$.o 0akingointooconsiderationoallotheseofactsocumulaE tively+otheo substantiveosentenceoofo1oyearoawardedotoothe petitionerobyotheo !ourtsobelowoisoreducedotootheoperiod alreadyoundergoneobyo him.

25.o ,etitionoisodisposedooff+oaccordingly."

¶19Admittedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2003 and as many as 21 years have passed ever since then. A perusal of the custody certificate of the accused?petitioner would show that he does not have any criminal antecedents and is a first time offender. Therefore, subject to the payment of the fine as imposed and payment of Rs.1,00,000 Lac as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, the sentence of the accused/petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 06 months and 07 days.

¶20The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶21Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ooooooo(JA+JITo+INGHoBEDI) JUDGE F 5/-a/3o07,o2025 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:? Yes/No Whether reportable:? Yes/No