Crl.R. No.107 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.107 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: April 28, 2009 RAM DUTT ...PETITIONER VERSUS U.T. CHANDIGARH ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. ROBIN DUTT, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. RAJIV SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgement passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh dated 19.11.1998, vide which he was convicted under Section 279 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 months and also under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. The aforementioned judgement was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal in which the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was upheld, however, sentence under Section 304-A was reduced from 18 months to R.I. for 1 year. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not challenge the findings of both the Courts below as far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, however, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the occurrence took place on Crl.R. No.107 of 2002 -2- 23.11.1994, and as more than 14 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence, therefore, the petitioner has already suffered a long and protracted trial. The prayer of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent who submits that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the sentence as a young person, namely, Ram Parkash was killed because of the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 IPC and 304-A IPC is upheld on the basis of the evidence led in the present case. The occurrence was seen by Baldev Raj who was an eye witness to the accident and his testimony has not been shaken in any manner by the counsel for the accused. However, as far as on the question of sentencing the petitioner is concerned, I find that the petitioner has already undergone a long and protracted trial of more than 14 years, therefore, it would be just and proper if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. In view of the above, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him, subject to the condition that he pays a compensation of Rs.40,000/- which shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased Ram Parkash. The compensation of Rs.40,000/- be deposited in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on or before 31.8.2009, failing which the petitioner shall be taken in custody forthwith and shall serve out the remaining portion of his sentence as awarded to him by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgement dated 20.12.2001. It is Crl.R. No.107 of 2002 -3- made clear that the aforesaid compensation of Rs.40,000/- shall be over and above the compensation which may have been received by the legal heirs of the deceased from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh shall disburse the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Ram Parkash. The respondent shall furnish the details of the L.R.s of the deceased in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh within a period of 3 months from today. The disbursement shall be done by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh after proper verification of the L.R.s of the deceased. April 28, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE