IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 1433 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Kanwar Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.D.K.Jangra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.7.2009 and 16.7.2009 respectively, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar has been dismissed. Notice in the revision as well as in the application for suspension of sentence was issued on 20.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than two months of actual sentence out of total sentence of six months and he does not want to contest the conviction provided the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone as the petitioner has already faced the agony of protracted trial for the last approximately eight years. The petitioner is ready to pay some reasonable amount of compensation to the family of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not a previous convict, he is a poor person and is sole bread winner of the family and, Crl.Revision No. 1433 of 2010 [2] therefore lenient view may be taken. Mr.Mor, learned counsel for the State has also not controverted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also submits that if the petitioner pays some compensation to the family of the deceased then his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments under challenge. In the present case, FIR No. 557 dated 11.8.2002 was registered on the basis of statement made by Naresh Kumar by stating that his grand-father received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner as he hit TATA 407 with his Jeep. The other occupants of the Jeep also received injuries. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of necessary formalities challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. He was charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under: Kanwar Singh U/S 279 IPC To undergo RI for two months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. U/S 337 IPC To undergo RI for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. U/S 304-A IPC To undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. Crl.Revision No. 1433 of 2010 [3] All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction dated 15.7.2009 and order of sentence dated 16.7.2009 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, which was also dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments passed by the Courts below. In the present case, the petitioner caused an accident while driving Tata 407 in rash and negligent manner leading to the death of Preet Singh, grand-father of the complainant. The witnesses have categorically deposed as to the manner in which Tata 407 was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the petitioner. I find no ground to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to contest the conviction and is also ready to pay some compensation to the family of the deceased if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Moreover, the petitioner is not having criminal background and he is a poor person and is sole bread earner in the family and is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last about 8 years. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be genuine and the same is accepted. Under these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of petitioner Kanwar Singh under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to be paid to the heirs of the deceased/injured. The said amount be deposited before the trial Crl.Revision No. 1433 of 2010 [4] Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the petitioner would undergo the remainder of sentence. With above modification, the revision petition is disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 23, 2010. raghav