In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 636 of 2003 Date of decision: March 06, 2009 Mukesh ... Petitioner vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Mukesh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 18/24.5.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 IPC; and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on 14.8.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. Shish Ram complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') was returning to village Pahari from Dighawa in his tractor bearing registration No.HYO-3038 and when he reached near Manphara T- Point near the field of Jai Pal, he saw Mahipal son of Umed Singh coming on scooter. One another person was sitting on the pillion seat. In the meantime one tractor came from the opposite side very rashly and negligently and hit the scooter. Both the occupants of the scooter suffered injuries. Mahipal son of Umed Singh died at the spot, Crl. Revision No. 636 of 2003 -2- *** whereas, the other occupant of the scooter was removed to Bhiwani Hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined SI/SHO Jagdish Parshad (PW1), Dharam Pal (PW2), Bhagat Singh (PW3), Shish Ram complainant (PW4), Ombir (PW5), Tara Chand (PW6), C. Gian Singh (PW7), ASI Sajjan Singh (PW8), Dr.K.C. Kajal (PW9), Dr. Satish Sangwan (PW10) and Satnarain Sharma (PW11). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction has urged that the petitioner is a first offender and has suffered agony on account of the protracted proceedings. It has been further urged that since the petitioner has already undergone about 5 months of the substantive sentence, therefore, a lenient view in the matter be taken. Having examined the impugned judgment, it appears to have been passed on appreciation of the evidence in the right perspective. No irregularity much less illegality has been pointed out or detected resulting into miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about five months out of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub the petitioner Crl. Revision No. 636 of 2003 -3- *** as habitual offender. Consequently, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, within three months from today, failing which the instant petition shall stand dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani for compliance. March 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge