1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1719 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.9.2009 *** Kulwant Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate for legal heirs of deceased Tarlochan Singh. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is undergoing substantive sentence of two year awarded by the learned trial court, as up-held, but modified by the learned appellate Court under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code for having driven truck bearing registration No. PB10X-9453 rashly and negligently on 4.3.2003 and for causing accident, resulting into death of one Tarlochan Singh. The petitioner was awarded six months RI under Section 279 IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- while for committing an offence under Section 304-A IPC, imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 4000/- was awarded. In default of payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and 2 months respectively was awarded under the aforesaid heads. The sentences were to run concurrently. It was also ordered that half of the fine amount be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellate Court below maintained the conviction of the petitioner under both the heads but modified the sentence by observing that there is no need to impose separate sentence under Section 279 IPC and accordingly set aside the same. Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgments of conviction and sentence returned by two of the Courts below. On July 14, 2009 when this revision petition came up for 2 hearing, it was admitted only to the limited extent of quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has been contended that a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased Tarlochan Singh and affidavits of son, wife and father respectively of deceased Tarlochan Singh have been placed on record wherein they have asserted that they have no objection if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to one already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case law reported as Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 502 wherein, under similar circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the factum of compromise entered between the parties, reduced the sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC to the one already undergone. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has underwent the agony of protracted trial and thereafter of appeal for an about 6 years and he is behind the bars for about two and a half months. Thus, leniency has been sought. Undisputedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2003 and since then the petitioner has suffered agony of trial as well as the appeal before the appellate Court below. There is nothing which is suggestive of the fact that after his release on bail, the present petitioner had acted in a manner prejudicial to law and order or that he is again found involved in similar type of offence. In view of the discussion and legal position enumerated above, coupled with the factum of compromise entered between the parties, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 22,2009 Jiten