Crl. Revision No. 1271 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1271 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.08.2008 Ranjit Singh S/o Ujjar Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Niraj Bhutani, AAG, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL J.(ORAL) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Panchkula dismissing the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the judgment dated 12.06.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Panchkula whereby he was convicted under Section 279/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- Som Nath S/o Narsi Ram resident of Tagri Kali Ram Police Station Kalka is a tea vendor on a 'Rehri'. He had three children, two daughters and one son. On 11.08.1999 at about 7.00 A.M., his eldest daughter Neha aged about five years was coming back from the fields, when she was on turning point the petitioner while driving truck bearing registration no. HR-03-9694 rashly and negligently crushed his daughter Neha under the right wheel of the truck, resultantly she died on the spot. Case was registered and investigated on trial, he was charged for the Crl. Revision No. 1271 of 2008 2 aforesaid offences, to which he opted to contest. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined MHC Mahinder Singh PW1, C Nafe Singh PW2, Amar Nath PW3, Krishan Gopal PW4, Som Nath PW5, Ram Chander ASI PW6, Dr. K.K. Bansal PW7, Jai Dev PW8, Jasbinder Singh Pw-9. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his innocence. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in his defence. Having examined the judgments of both the Courts below, it transpires that Amarnath PW3 and Som Nath PW5 have consistently stated that the petitioner was rash and neglegent in his driving. Their testimonies are free from any blemish. Both the Courts below have appreciated the prosecution the witnesses, in right perspective. Even otherwise, concurrent finding of fact regarding the guilty of the petitioner could not be interfered without any significent material to upset the same. Faced with the situation, without assailing the judgment of conviction, counsel for the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court in the quantum of sentence. The occurrence having taken place way back in the year 1999, the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has not repeated the offence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record to dub him as habitual offender. Thus, keeping in view the conspectus of the entire evidence and circumstances prevailing over the case, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of 4 Crl. Revision No. 1271 of 2008 3 months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for intimation and compliance. 19.08.2008 (A.N. JINDAL) Ajay JUDGE