Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2003 Date of decision: February 05, 2010 Jagdish Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 29.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 28.3.1996 at about 7.30 p.m. the complainant Raj Dev Singh Advocate was returning from Ludhiana towards Barnala in his jeep bearing registration No.PB13-A-8356 driven by Rup Singh driver. When he crossed the bus stop of village Gangohar, he noticed that the accused while driving mini truck i.e. tampoo tata 608 bearing registration No.PB-10L-0531 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and dashed against his jeep. As a result of the accident, Rup Singh driver sustained injuries. He stopped the coming car and shifted the injured to the hospital of Dr. Vijay Kumar at Barnala, who referred the injured to CMC, Ludhiana, however, the injured succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of this statement, a formal FIR was Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2003 -2- registered and investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, rough site plan of the place was prepared; postmortem examination of the dead was got conducted; took into possession the vehicles involved in the accident and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Section 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Amritpal Singh (PW1), Dr. R.K. Karkara (PW2), Raj Dev Singh complainant (PW3), Sukhjit Singh (PW4), Harbans Singh (PW5), Malkiat Singh I.O. (PW6), Jagtar Singh (PW7), Mohd. Nisar (PW8), Dr. Vikram David (PW9) and Parveen Kumar (PW10). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone about six 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. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity 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. He has already undergone six months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come 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. Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2003 -3- Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioner is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur for compliance. February 05, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge