IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1991 of 2003 Date of decision: September 20, 2010 Karnail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 18.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 05.06.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A, IPC. On 03.09.1995, Hira Lal son of Basanta Ram, resident of Village Jansa had suffered injuries and was admitted to PGI Chandigarh. His statement could not be recorded as the doctor had declared him unfit to make the statement. On 04.09.1995, ASI Hari Singh along with other police officials reached PGI, Chandigarh and after coming to know about his death, he recorded the statement of Bhagwan Dass son of Roop Chand (PW3), who disclosed that on 01.09.1995, he and Faqir Chand son of Vasu Ram, resident of Suraj Kalan and Hari Lal son of Basanta Ram, resident of Village Jansua were present at G.T. Road near Gatta Factory. At about Criminal Revision No.1991 of 2003 -2- 05:30 PM, when Hira Lal was standing to cross the road. Meanwhile, the accused while driving a scooter bearing No.CH-01-R-5740 rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn came on wrong side and struck against the Hira Lal, with the result, he received grievous injuries, however, he ran away from the spot. Hira Lal was taken to A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura but due to his serious condition, he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, case was registered and investigated. The completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Pathani Bai (PW1), Wazir Chand (PW2), Bhagwan Dass(PW3), HC Sucha Singh (PW4), ASI Hari Singh (PW5) and Dr. Dalbir Singh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by him also failed. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that they being the first offenders and having already undergone more than six months and 17 days months of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting Criminal Revision No.1991 of 2003 -3- interference by this Court. As such, the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone more than six months and 17 days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to that of already undergone without alternation in the sentence of fine. However, the accused is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance. September 20, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) Gagan Judge