IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.133 of 2003 Date of decision: February 18, 2010 Om Parkash .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 14.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 13/14.3.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 279 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.800/- under Section 304-A IPC. However, in appeal, sentence under Section 304-A IPC was reduced to one year. At the very outset, the judgment of conviction awarded against the accused has not been challenged. However, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant having expired, the accused has comprised with Roshan Lal father of the deceased child after payment of Rs.30,000/- as compensation. Besides, he (father of the deceased) has also received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in the claim petition. Statements of the parties, in this regard, have also been recorded separately. Even otherwise, while going through the impugned judgment, it transpires that on 28.12.1993, when the complainant along with Tek Cand was smoking huka in front of Harijan Chopal of village Hajampur and Shaluk Kumar was playing nearby, then the accused while driving truck Criminal Revision No.133 of 2003 -2- bearing registration No.HYL 2175 rashly and negligently without blowing any horn came from the side of Tosham and hit Shaluk Kumar, as a result of which he died. The testimony of Tek Chand stands corroborated by the medical evidence and no such illegality much less irregularity has been found warranting interference by this court at the revisional stage. Though the accused has been found guilty of rash and negligent driving, yet, on visual examination of the accused present in the court it appears that he is about 68 years old and is having poor eye sights. There is nothing to show that he was under influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment. However in the similar circumstances of the case, the Apex Court in case Manish Jalan vs. State of Karnataka 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 666 was pleased to take a lenient view by reducing the sentence to that of already undergone and while awarding some compensation. In the instant case, since the parties have compromised the matter and the accused is in the evening of his life has compensated the father of the deceased, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to that of already undergone by him. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by the accused without alteration in sentence of fine. February 18, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge