Crl.Rev.No.1796 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1796 of 2004 Date of Decision: 6 - 5 - 2009 Omi @ Om Parkash .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Omi @ Om Parkash. He was tried by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal in case FIR No.778 dated 16.12.1995 registered at Police Station City Palwal under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him under Section 304-A IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was further convicted and sentenced under Section 338 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced under Section 279 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved against the Crl.Rev.No.1796 of 2004 [2] same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. Appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.1995 at about 7.00 A.M. truck No.HRP-5445 being driven by the petitioner fell into the pits. Satbir and Suresh who were travelling in the truck suffered injuries. Satbir survived but Suresh died due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal appearing for the petitioner at the out set has stated that in view of the findings of fact recorded by two Courts below, he will not be in a position to assail conviction of the petitioner. Counsel has further stated that he is conscious that this Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot do re-appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence. He has stated that he be allowed to make an alternative prayer of reduction in sentence and awarding of compensation to the family of the deceased. Mr.Aggarwal has further stated that in the present case occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. Petitioner had already suffered a protracted trial of about 14 years. Counsel further submit that in order dated 13.5.2002 determining the quantum of sentence, it was noticed by the trial Court that petitioner was not a previous convict and was about 55 years of age. Counsel further submitted that after registration of the present FIR, petitioner has committed no offence. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has children of marriageable age and in case he is sent behind the bars, their matrimonial prospectus shall stand eclipsed. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner has already undergone about three months of sentence. I am of the view that in case the petitioner is sent behind the bars, no useful purpose would be served. However, family of the deceased Crl.Rev.No.1796 of 2004 [3] can be compensated. Taking into consideration the protracted trial, age and antecedents of the petitioner, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Suresh. In case the amount of fine is not deposited by the petitioner within three months from today, he shall undergo the entire sentence as determined by the Courts below. Revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 6, 2009. JUDGE RC