IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2180 of 2003 Date of decision: September 15, 2010 Surjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 12.9.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC Factual matrix of the case is that on 16.9.1995, at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant Om Parkash (herein referred as 'the complainant') came across HC Ram Kumar, at Bahalgar Chowk and informed him that Satyavrat (a school going child) son of Ramesh Chand was going to his house from the school on his bicycle, in the meantime, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.HR46-4331 in a rash and negligent manner came and struck against him, consequently, he was crushed. The accused fled away with the truck. 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. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Om Parkash (PW1), Ramesh Chand (PW2), Pradeep (PW3), Raghbir Criminal Revision No.2180 of 2003 -2- (PW4), Shiv Kumar (PW5) and Dr. H.R. Singhal (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by him also failed. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that they being the first offenders and having already undergone more than two months out of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to expression of opinion formed by the Appellate Court regarding the guilt of the accused could be made. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone more than two months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, he is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, for compliance. September 15, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge