IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.836 of 1996 Date of Decision : April 08, 2010 Dhani Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Hry. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under sections 279/337/304-A/429 IPC on the allegations that on 24.3.1987, he drove truck bearing registration No.HRR-4605 in a rash and negligent manner and hit a camel-cart as a result of which, the cart was completely damaged, a she-camel died and four occupants of the cart received injuries, out of whom two died. Vide judgment and order dated 18/19.5.1993, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri convicted the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 8.10.1996 by maintaining his conviction and Crl. Revision No.836 of 1996 - 2 - sentence. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed the present revision in which he was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 3.12.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the conviction of the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the accident in question relates to the year 1987. Ever since then, the sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the head of the petitioner. The petitioner is a poor person and the sole bread winner for his family. He is also not a previous convict. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that on account of the accident caused by the petitioner, two persons died whereas two others received injuries. Even the she-camel, pulling the cart, died on account of the accident. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. She has, however, placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. It is apparent from the custody certificate that the petitioner was taken into custody on 8.10.1996 upon the dismissal of his appeal by the lower Appellate Court. He was released on 14.12.1996 pursuant to the order passed by this Court granting the concession of bail to him. In all, the petitioner has undergone an actual period of two months and seven days out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him. When the petitioner was heard by the learned trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a poor person and not a previous Crl. Revision No.836 of 1996 - 3 - convict. The trial of the case went on for more than six years. Even the present revision has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 13 years. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars so as to serve his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to deposit an amount of Rs.60,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today so that the same may be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation in equal shares. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC, is upheld. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The petitioner is, however, directed to deposit an amount of Rs.60,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to serve his remaining sentence of imprisonment. In case, aforesaid deposit is made by the petitioner, the same shall be distributed to the legal heirs of the deceased persons as compensation in equal shares. The sentence of fine alongwith its default clause, as imposed by the trial Court is maintained. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) April 08, 2010 JUDGE satish