IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.746 of 2004 Date of Decision 01.10.2010 Rattan Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Surender Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has assailed the judgment dated 22.10.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 16/18.02.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.750/- under Section 304-A IPC. Allegations against the petitioner are that on 15.06.1998, he, while driving Tata Canter bearing registration No.HR-01B/9258, rashly and negligently, struck against the scooter of Master Kaur Singh, as a result of which he received injuries and died at the spot. Consequently, on trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have Criminal Revision No.746 of 2004 -2- been appreciated in the right perspective. The complainant and eye-witness had spotted the accused, therefore, they could well identify him. No such illegality much less irregularity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. The occurrence in this case took place in the year 1998 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings since then. He has already undergone more than six months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought to the surface which may be treated as aggravating circumstance for taking harsh view in the matter, therefore, it is a fit case where some leniency could be shown to the petitioner. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.10.2010 mamta-II