In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1147 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: May 12, 2009 Subhash Chander .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdena, DAG, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 23.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 5.8.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dassuya, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. On 10.4.1996, Maru Ram (father's sister's husband of the complainant) along with his grand son namely Vivek Kumar had come to see the land of the complainant Pushwinder Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant'). At about 6.00 p.m. the complainant along with his cousin Ramesh Chand was going to village Manser on a bicycle, whereas, his uncle Maru Ram and Vivek were going ahead of them on another bicycle. When they reached near the barrier of village Manser, the petitioner while driving metador bearing registration No.DL-IC-0839, rashly and negligently, came and struck the same against Maru Ram, as a result of which Maru Ram and Vivek Kumar fell down and suffered multiple injuries. The said metador struck against the maruti car bearing registration No.CH01A4031 also. The injured were removed to the Civil Hospital where Maru Ram succumbed to his injuries, whereas, Vivek Kumar was referred to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. The petitioner was arrested. Completion of the investigation Crl. Revision No. 1147 of 2004 -2- was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted that the petitioner being first offender and having already undergone about seven 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 has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone about seven months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been exposed in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, the ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the same is reduced to one year without alteration of sentence of fine. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. May 12, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge