IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.879 of 2000 Date of decision: April 08, 2010 Tayyub .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 6.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Tayyub (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 4/5.11.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Brief resume of facts is that on 20.4.1995 at about 6/6.30 p.m. after finishing his job, the complainant Sharif was following his younger brother Bashir. In the meantime, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.HYG-2952 rashly and negligently struck against Bashir, as a result of which the wheel of the driver side of the truck ran over him and he died at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared; postmortem examination of the dead body was got conducted; statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused was arrested. 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 claimed trial. Criminal Revision No.879 of 2000 -2- The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction recorded against the accused, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about one month 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 warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. 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 about one month 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 him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to three months. However, the petitioner is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the 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, Gurgaon for compliance. April 08, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge