IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2086 of 2003 Date of decision: September 15, 2010 Asgar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 1.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 8.12.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC; simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC. However, in appeal, the sentence was reduced to nine months. Factual matrix of the case is that on 11.12.1989 the police party headed by Zile Singh was present at Ambala Road near Chhoti Line in connection with patrolling where the complainant Sunder Lal (herein referred as 'the complainant') disclosed him that in the morning he had gone to drop his son Rajan to school on his bicycle. He stopped his bicycle about 10 feet beyond the kacha berm going towards the school and when his son was in the process of crossing the road, in the meantime, the accused while driving Oil Tanker bearing registration No.URF-4079 rashly and negligently came from the bus stand Jagadhari and struck against his son, as a result of which he died at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. Criminal Revision No.2086 of 2003 -2- 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 Sunder Lal (PW1), Siri Krishan (PW2), Daya Nand (PW3), Ram Parsad (PW4), Kapil Kumar Photographer (PW5), Surinder Kumar Mechanic (PW6), Dr. Rajbir Singh (PW7) and SI Babu Ram (PW8). 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 with certain modification in the sentence. 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 one month 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 interference by this Court. As such, findings of fact returned by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused are maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1989 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone more than one month 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 five months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, for compliance. September 15, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge