IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.860 of 2001 Date of Decision:29.5.2008 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Neeraj Khana, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL J.(ORAL) Vide order dated 23.5.2001, the appeal was converted into revision petition and notice of the petition was issued only on the quantum of sentence. Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 18.11.1995, complainant- Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Madpur, had gone to Samrala to make some purchases for the wedding of his daughter, Swaranjit Kaur which was fixed for 19.11.1995. His brother-in-law, Harmesh Singh and his son, Paramjeet Singh also accompanied him. After making the purchases, when they were returning to their village Madput, Harmesh Singh was driving scooter No.PB-10K-1991 over which his son, Paramjeet Singh was sitting. As soon as they reached near village Chahlan, the accused which driving bus No.PB12A-9924, rashly and negligently came from the opposite side, struck against the scooter of Harmesh Singh. Resultantly, he fell down and died on the spot, whereas Paramjeet Singh suffered injuries. In the process, the scooter was also damaged. Paramjeet Singh was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Samrala. On the statement of the complainant, case was registered Crl.Revision No.860 of 2001 [2] against the accused. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned, consequently he was charged under Section 304A, 337, 279 and 427 Indian Penal Code to which he opted to contest. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him which was dismissed with the modification that he was acquitted under Section 427 Indian Penal Code whereas the conviction recorded under Section 304A, 337 and 279 Indian Penal Code was maintained. As a sequel of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner, Harmesh Singh lost his life and Paramjeet Singh suffered injuries. The evidence has been appreciated by both the Courts below. No such mitigating circumstances warranting the Court to take a lenient view in his favour has been set forth. Day in and day out, the accidents are on the increase due to the unqualified, illiterate, inexperienced, untrained and rash drivers. The vehicles are being driven rashly and negligently and they play havoc with the public. The deceased and the injured were on their left side when the bus struck against them. The petitioner, without caring for the lives of others, turned one live body into corpse and the other was rendered incapacitated within the twinkling of an eye. Consequently, I see no reason for extending the benefit of taking a lenient view. Consequently, I see no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 29.5.2008 (A.N.JINDAL) sailesh JUDGE