In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1918 of 2002 Date of decision: November 10, 2008 Sohan Lal ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner Sohan Lal (herein referred to as 'the petitioner') and maintaining the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.4.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months under Section 304-A IPC. Briefly stated, the story leading to the culmination of the trial is that on 21.12.1991 at about 7.40 a.m. Complainant Krishan Kumar along with his brothers Subhash and Ajit and Krishan son of Daryao Singh, Surender son of Ram Singh and Munshi Ram son of Hoshiyar Singh left the village in four wheeler bearing registration No.DL1L-6225. Surender was driving the vehicle and at about 8.30 a.m. when they reached near village Nuna Majra, the petitioner while driving the truck bearing registration No. RJP-8111 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against the four wheeler, consequently, Surender died at the spot, whereas others were injured. Later on, Krishan Kumar son of Dariyav Singh and Subhash also succumbed to their injuries in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was Crl. Revision No. 1918 of 2002 -2- *** registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Baljit Singh (PW1), Surender (PW2), Shamsher Singh (PW3), Jai Singh (PW4), Ajit Singh (PW5), Muni Ram (PW6), Samunder Singh (PW7), Dr. K.C. Aggarwal (PW8) and Krishan Kumar (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has undergone about 4 months of the substantive sentence and the occurrence pertains to the year 1991. The petitioner has already suffered a lot as such a lenient view may be taken on the point of 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 concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the courts below warranting interference at my end. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the instant case was registered way back in the year 1991 and he has already suffered much agony on account of the protracted trial. The petitioner is stated to have already undergone about four months of the substantive sentence. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head for the last 17 years. Nothing has come on record showing bad antecedents of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, some leniency could be shown to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the same is reduced to one year without alteration in the sentence of fine and the sentence awarded qua other offences. Crl. Revision No. 1918 of 2002 -3- *** Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar for compliance. November 10, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge