IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2034 of 2003 Date of decision: September 21, 2010 Tarsem Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 8.8.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. However, in appeal, the sentence was reduced to one year under Section 304-A IPC. On 5.9.1997, the complainant Amrik Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') along with his brother Kulwant Singh was going to Amritsar from village Nag Kalan on their bicycle for their daily work. At about 8.00 a.m. when they reached near the Police Post of village Nag Kalan, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.PB-02K- 9755 rashly and negligently came from behind and struck into the cycle on Kulwant Singh, as a result of which he fell down and was crushed under the truck. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and case was investigated. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the court. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No.2034 of 2003 -2- The prosecution led evidence; statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, opportunity to lead defence was given to him and ultimately the trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed with certain modification in the sentence. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about 1- ½ months of the substantive sentence, may 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, the findings of fact returned by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused, are affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone about 1- ½ months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought 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 him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to three months without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, he is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased within three months from today. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for compliance. September 21, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge