IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.909 of 2005 Date of decision: March 11, 2010 Juhru .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 29.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 21.1.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal, convicting and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 2.9.1997 at about 7.30 a.m. the complainant Dharam Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with his father Phool Singh was going on their separate bicycles to village Roopraka for labour work. Phool Singh was going ahead of him and when they reached near the turning of school of village Roopraka, in the meantime, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.RRA7585 rashly and negligently came from the side of Utawar Chowk and hit against his father Phool Singh. As a result of which, Phool Singh fell down on the road and the truck ran over his body. Phool Singh died at the spot. On the basis of the said statement, FIR was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, postmortem examination on the dead body of Phool Singh was got conducted; rough site plan of the place of accident was prepared; accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation, a report under Section Criminal Revision No.909 of 2005 -2- 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the court. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, it has been submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about one month 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 or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of the guilt of the accused. 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 1997 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence. 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 which is reduced to six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. March 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge