Crl. Rev. No.1393 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1393 of 2005 Date of Decision: 18 - 2 - 2010 Ram Pal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Hemlata Balhara, AAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ram Pal son of Bhagat Ram was named as accused in case FIR No.635 dated 8.9.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Ram Niwas complainant appeared before HC Ranbir Singh and made a statement that he was employed on the tractor of Jai Singh resident of Village Ugra Kheri. On 7.9.1996, he loaded wooden logs on the tractor from Village Habatpur and proceeded towards Panipat. At that time, it was 8.15 P.M. Complainant was accompanied by his nephew Randhir son of Khayali Ram. When they were proceeding towards Panipat after taking meal on a Dhabha, then a truck bearing registration No.HYR-5999 came Crl. Rev. No.1393 of 2005 [2] from the side of Karnal. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently and it hit the tractor from behind. Due to the collusion, Randhir fell from the tractor, received injuries and died. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial Court placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW1 Ram Niwas and has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal and also held that testimony of Ram Niwas PW1 was reliable. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail conviction of the petitioner. However, he has submitted that as per affidavit submitted by Jagjit Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal when petitioner was lodged in jail his age was 60 years. Petitioner has undergone 2 months and 7 days of actual sentence. Counsel has submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in September, 1996. Petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than 13 years. Counsel states that by sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage, no useful purpose would be served but in case some compensation is granted to the family of the deceased, it may provide solace to the aggrieved family. I find merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking those submissions into consideration, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence is suitably Crl. Rev. No.1393 of 2005 [3] reduced. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, Rs.35,000/- is imposed as fine. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be disbursed to the family of the deceased. Otherwise, no benefit of reduction in sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 18, 2010. JUDGE RC