In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1135 of 2004 Date of decision: 28.05.2009 Surat Ram ... Petitioner Vs. U.T. Chandigarh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Stuti Kohli, Advocate Amicus Curiae with Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 11.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 14.8.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, and convicting and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 304-A IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on 16.7.1998, at about 5.30 p.m. The complainant Madhya Lagan and Baria Swami were proceeding towards Mauli Jagran on their respective cycles, and when they reached near the railway light point, the traffic was being manually operated. The traffic from Kalka to Chandigarh was stopped and the vehicles were proceeding from Railway Station to town. The complainant along with Baria Swami were crossing the road, in the meantime, the petitioner while driving the truck bearing No.CH-01-R-7977, rashly and Crl. Revision No. 1135 of 2004 -2- *** negligently came and struck against Baria Swami, as a result of which he suffered multiple injuries and became unconscious. He was removed to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been contended that the petitioner being first offender and having already undergone four months out of the substantive sentence, could be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any irregularity much less illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the pendency of the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents relating to him have been brought on record so as to dub Crl. Revision No. 1135 of 2004 -3- *** him as habitual offender. He has already undergone four months of the substantive sentence. As such, at this stage, it would not be in the fitness of things to send him back to prison and ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and he could also be directed to pay compensation. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that as already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, he is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- to legal heirs of the deceased, 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, Chandigarh for compliance. Ms. Stuti Kohli, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim her remuneration as per rules. May 28, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge