IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2050 of 2004 Date of decision: October 06, 2010 Santokh Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 24.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Tract Court-II, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 11.7.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. On 26.9.1998, the complainant Sohan Singh (herein referred as, the complainant') disclosed that he was returning from Mukerian after purchasing medicines. At about 11.45 a.m. when he reached near SPN College turning, his niece (brother's daughter) namely Jasbir Kaur, who was studying in 10+1 class in Guru Nanak Kanya School, was going ahead of him on her bicycle. She was crossing the road and in the meantime, the accused while driving bus bearing registration No.PB-08R-2051 rashly and negligently struck against her, as a result of which she fell down and became unconscious. The accused took her niece of the Civil Hospital, Mukerian, but she succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. Criminal Revision No. 2050 of 2004 -2- The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, opportunity to lead defence was given to him and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has already undergone more than five months of the substantive sentence, therefore, a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Having gone through the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence has 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 regarding the guilt of the accused. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards the quantum of sentence, since the sword of sentence remained hanging over the head of the petitioner since the year 1998 till date and he has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending against him since then and that he has already undergone more than five months of the substantive sentence, therefore, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be shown to the accused on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, the sentence awarded against the petitioner is modified which is reduced to eight months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. October 06, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge