Crl.R. No.327 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.327 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: March 27, 2009 HARDEEP SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. R.K. TRIKHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. A.S. GREWAL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner Hardeep Singh has filed this revision petition impugning the judgement dated 19.4.2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur and the judgement dated 23.1.2004, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which he has been convicted under Section 304-A and 279 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year under Section 304-A and R.I. for 1 month under Section 279 IPC. Fine has also been imposed upon the petitioner. Mr. Trikha, counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to argue on the merits of the case and therefore, he would not have any objection if the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. He, however, submits that as the incident took place on 1.7.1999, i.e. almost 10 years ago, therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already been in custody for 2 months and 24 days and that the mishap took place while the petitioner was Crl.R. No.327 of 2004 -2- reversing the vehicle. It is contended that the accident was absolutely unintentional. The vehicle Tata Sumo was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner are vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is contended that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency while sentencing him, as because of his rash and negligent driving he has overrun a 1½ years old girl child. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the incident took place while the petitioner was reversing his vehicle in the street. He could not notice that a child had come up behind the vehicle. It is thus clear that as the vehicle was being reversed, therefore, it would not have been on a high speed. Moreover, the petitioner has already faced a long and protracted trial of about 10 years and has also been in custody for about 3 months. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, I upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A and 279 IPC alongwith fine imposed upon him and reduce the sentence to the already undergone by him. The petitioner shall, however, pay a compensation of Rs.1 lac to Smt. Karamjit Kaur W/o Paramjit Singh Saini, mother of the deceased child. The compensation be paid within a period of three months from today. The amount be deposited by the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur who shall, after due verification, disburse the same to Smt. Karamjit Kaur. Smt. Karamjit Kaur shall be informed of her right to receive the compensation by the trial Court. In case the compensation of Rs.1 lac is not deposited within the stipulated period as mentioned above, then the petitioner shall be taken in custody and shall serve out the remaining portion of his sentence. It is made clear that Crl.R. No.327 of 2004 -3- the compensation awarded in this revision petition shall be over and above the compensation which the claimants may have received from the Motor Accidents Tribunal. Revision petition disposed of. March 27, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE