Criminal Revision No. 2519 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2519 of 2003 Date of Decision: 11.2.2010 Satbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Satbir Singh, petitioner to the present revision petition, was tried in case FIR No. 23 dated 19.1.1996 registered at Police Station Gharaunda, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, for offence under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/-, for offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Criminal Revision No. 2519 of 2003 2 Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed. In the present case, accident had taken place on 19.1.1996 at about 11.00 A.M. In the accident, Vikas son of Jagdish died. The petitioner was stated to be the driver of Swaraj Mazda Canter bearing No. HNL-4951. Allegation in the present case is that due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, death of Vikas was caused. Balinder Singh PW.1 was the complainant. Maman Ram PW.5 was another eye witness of the occurrence, who corroborated the testimony of PW.1 Balinder Singh. Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of petitioner, recorded by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Counsel has contended that except to point out discrepancies, he has nothing else in his arsenal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the argument that identity of the accused has not been established, was not accepted by the two Courts below as in supplementary statement, name of petitioner has already surfaced. Counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in January 1996. He further urged that the petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for a period of 14 years. Counsel has further contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence and he is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about two months of his actual sentence out of one Criminal Revision No. 2519 of 2003 3 year sentence awarded by the trial Court. Counsel further prayed that awarding of compensation may provide some solace to the family of deceased but sending the petitioner behind the bars may not serve any useful purpose. I find merit in the alternative contention made by counsel for the petitioner. Taking into consideration various factors enumerated by counsel for the petitioner and the arguments which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 11, 2010 “DK”