Crl. Revision No.137 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.137 of 2005 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Bohar Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL -.- Present: Mr. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, A.A.G., Punjab. A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 4.12.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Muktsar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 25.9.2003, passed by Chief Judi- cial Magistrate, Muktsar convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Crl. Revision No.137 of 2005 -2- Rs.500/- each under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and to further un- dergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A I.P.C. The allegations against the petitioner are that the ac- cused (herein referred as “the petitioner”) while driving tractor in a rash and negligent manner struck against the Scooter, as a result of which Shanti Devi fell down from the Scooter bearing No.31A-0636 on the metalled road and trolla ran over her. Ultimately she suc- cumbed to her injuries, whereas the accused fled away. Registration of the case was followed by investigation and presentation of report was its consequent event. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below, the only prayer made is for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Still the scrutiny of the impugned judgment does not indi- cate if it is not based on sound reasons. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the con- duct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, no exception could be made to the ex- pression of opinion made by the Court below. Crl. Revision No.137 of 2005 -3- As regards the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2001. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. That apart, he has already un- dergone more than 5 months of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be expedient and in the inter- est of justice to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to eight months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, for compliance. ( A.N. JINDAL ) 13th October, 2010 JUDGE ashish