IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2432 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 07.10.2010 Sat Pal Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed by petitioner Sat Pal Singh against judgment dated 21.8.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Anandpur Sahib has been dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld. Notice in the revision as well as in the application for suspension of sentence was issued on 6.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset, submits that he does not want to contest the conviction of the petitioner but prays for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone as he has suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last Crl. Revision No. 2432 of 2010 [2] more than 8-1/2 years. Against the total sentence of one year, the petitioner has undergone more than 2 months of actual sentence. He is very poor person and is the only bread winner of the family. He is not a previous convict and no case is pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner has a good case on merits also, as the alleged eye- witness PW-5 Bhupinder Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-5 Bhupinder Singh has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he never saw the accused nor met the police in connection with this case. An erroneous finding has been given by the trial Court that the speedy truck hit the deceased and inspite of the fact that an eye-witness Bhupinder Singh PW-5 has resiled from his statement and has not supported the version of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to give some reasonable amount of compensation to the family of the deceased, if sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him as he has suffered a lot. Mr. R.S.Rawat, learned AAG, Punjab has also no objection in reducing the sentence in case petitioner is ready to give some reasonable amount of compensation to the family of the deceased. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments of both the Courts below and others documents available on the file. In this case, the FIR was registered on the basis of Crl. Revision No. 2432 of 2010 [3] statement of complainant Randhir Singh on 9th December, 2001 by stating that he was running a tea shop at the main road Gurudwara Patalpuri Sahib and on the day of alleged occurrence, he along with his mother was going near Bhakra Canal Bridge in the area of village Kiratpur Sahib, a truck bearing No.PAT-5496 came at high speed from the side of Bilaspur and run over his mother although she was going on left side of the road. The alleged occurrence was seen by a cyclist who was going on cycle and his cycle was also run over by the truck. The mother of the complainant died due to the injuries caused in the accident. FIR No. 100 dated 9.12.2001 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered and accused was charge- sheeted accordingly. The trial Court vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.11.2009 convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him as under: Under Section 279 IPC To undergo RI for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 304-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.11.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, which was dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar dated 21.8.2010. Crl. Revision No. 2432 of 2010 [4] Since learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the conviction and sentence of the petitioner but has made a prayer for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone as he has suffered the protracted trial for the last more than 8-1/2 years. The petitioner has no criminal background and is the only bread winner of the family. The petitioner is also ready to deposit some reasonable amount of compensation to the family of the deceased. Without saying much more on merits of the case, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the conviction of the petitioner and has restricted his prayer to the sentence part only with the submission that sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than 2 months against the total sentence of 1 year and has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 8-1/2 years. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is first offender having no criminal background and has already undergone more than two months of actual sentence against total sentence of one year and has faced the agony of protracted trial since 2001, the prayer of the petitioner seems to be genuine. Under these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of petitioner Sat Pal Singh under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the family of the deceased . The said amount be Crl. Revision No. 2432 of 2010 [5] deposited before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of release from the jail, failing which the petitioner would undergo the remainder of sentence. With the above modification of sentence, conviction is upheld and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The revision petition is dismissed with the said modification of sentence. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 07, 2010. raghav