In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2002 Date of decision: November 12, 2008 Haroon ... Petitioner versus 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. K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') filed against the judgment dated 6.4.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.5.1997, at about 7.00 a.m. Complainat Kamruddin along with his brother Abdul Rajak boarded the jeep bearing registration No.HR-26D-6196 from the bus stand Malab for Nuh and 7-8 other passengers were also sitting in the said jeep. The petitioner while driving the said jeep rashly and negligently, took the turn to village Kherla stating that he was to enquire about earnest money in connection with hiring of the jeep as the jeep was to go for taking a marriage party and he would be coming very shortly. When he was 2-3 acres ahead of the turning of the village Kherla, the jeep jumped over a speed breaker, consequently, Abdul Rajak fell on the road and received injuries. Later on, he succumbed to the injuries in the Government Hospital, Gurgaon. On the basis of the said statement, the FIR was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2002 -2- which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Phool Mohd. (PW1), Kamruddin (PW2), C. Attar Singh (PW3) and Dr. D.V. Yadav (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations pleaded false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than three months of the substantive sentence and the occurrence pertains to the year 1997. The petitioner has already suffered a lot as such a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected in the impugned judgment warranting interference at my end. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the instant case was registered against the petitioner way back in the year 1997 and he has already suffered much agony on account of the protracted proceedings. The petitioner is stated to have already undergone more than three months of the substantive sentence. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head for the last 11 years. Nothing has come on record showing his bad antecedents. Under the circumstances, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased within four months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for compliance. November 12, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge