1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 853 of 2005 Date of Decision: 18.8.2010 *** Yadwinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Punjab State. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner was tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar for an offence under Section 279, 304-A IPC with the allegations that on 6.12.2001 he drove Kinetic Honda scooter bearing registration No. PB65-2814 rashly and negligently and caused accident, as a result of which one Parduman Singh received injuries and died. During trial the prosecution produced as many as seven witnesses including PW2 complainant Gian Kaur, widow of deceased Parduman Singh. Though the case of the accused was of denial, but the learned trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence on record, convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under the first head while rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded under the second head with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days was provided. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched the merits of the case and has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has underwent the 2 agony of protracted trial and thereafter of appeal for an about 9 years and has remained in jail for about one month and four days in relation to the present case. It has further been contended that the petitioner is a student of B.Pharma. and if is sent behind the bars, his whole career would be at stake. The legal representatives of the deceased have already received adequate compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, some more compensation can be awarded to the family of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not committed any other offence, before or after the present occurrence. Undisputedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2001 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. Furthermore, prayer made by counsel that petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased, is to be considered in the context that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any useful purpose, however, family of the deceased can be compensated so that it may provide some succor. In this context, reference can also be made to a judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1725 of 2005 (Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab) decided on 18.2.2010 wherein similar consideration was taken into account for reducing the sentence. For the discussion above, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained, however, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, subject to his depositing Rs.25000/- as compensation within a period of three months, which, on realization, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased Parduman Singh. With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 18,2010 Jiten