Crl. Revision No.1380 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1380 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 12, 2009 Amrik Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajeev Goyal, AAG, Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Amrik Singh has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula vide judgment dated 16.7.2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 279 IPC and two years for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.07.2002 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were affirmed. Against that judgment, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. In this case, the alleged accident had taken place on 23.2.1995 with truck No.CHW-955, which was being driven by the petitioner in which Crl. Revision No.1380 of 2002 -2- one person died. As per the prosecution case, the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, on 23.2.1995 one Ajmer Singh was returning to his house after finishing his duty and when he reached near the saw mill of Subhash, truck No.CHW-955, being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, struck against him and he died on the spot. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, including PW1- Sant Ram, who deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. In defence, the accused raised the plea that at the time of the accident Ajmer Singh (deceased) was crossing the road, which was a National Highway. Secondly, the accused had taken the plea that the accident took place due to breaking-down of the tie-rod of the steering wheel of the truck being driven by the accused. The trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, convicted the accused and sentenced him, as indicated above. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below as well as the record of the case. After arguing for some time, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, he submits that in this case a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that out of two years of sentence, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 3 months and 8 days. He further submitted that since Crl. Revision No.1380 of 2002 -3- October 28, 2002 the petitioner is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last 14 years. He further stated that he is the only bread earner in the family. He further stated that the petitioner is not a previous convict and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In these facts and circumstances, even learned counsel for the respondent-State has not strongly objected if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has already undergone 3 months and 8 days of actual sentence and is on bail since October 28, 2002. Thus, keeping in view the said fact and the facts that he has already suffered protracted trial for the last 14 years; he is the only bread earner in the family; and he is also not a previous convict, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed. February 12, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE