IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2047 of 2004 Date of decision: February 17, 2010 Bhavishan Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 23.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court-II, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. Brief resume of facts is that on 13.1.2000, at about 4.00 p.m. Ajit Singh along with his younger brother Bhag Singh and maternal grand son Rajpreet Singh was standing in front of the gate of their house. In the meanwhile, the accused while driving vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration No.PB07D 6328 rashly and negligently came from the side of village Badla and struck against Rajpreet Singh, as a result of which he suffered multiple injuries and died at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused was charged under Section 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in Criminal Revision No. 2047 of 2004 -2- conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. At the very outset, without assailing the finding of conviction recorded against the petitioner, learned counsel has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about three months out 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. No illegality much less irregularity 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 2000 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come forth 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. 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 parents of the deceased child within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. February 17, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge