Crl. Revision No.1083 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1083 of 2004 Date of Decision: 15 - 2 - 2010 Rajender Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vinay Puri, Advocate for Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Hemlata Balhara, AAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No.243 dated 7.4.1993 registered at Police Station City Karnal under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC. SI Mahender Kumar had recorded the statement of Pritam Singh alias Hargobind who stated that he was working as Commission Agent in Subzi Mandi. On 7.4.1993 he had come to Sector 13 for some personal work when he saw Yogender Parkash who was known to him on a motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-05-B-0969. At that time, one Matador No.DAV-3835 came from back side of the motor-cycle driven in a Crl. Revision No.1083 of 2004 [2] rash and negligent manner and hit the motor-cycle, due to which Yogender Parkash fell on the road. A tyre of the Matador crossed over the chest of Yogender Parkash. Due to this accident, Yogender Parkash and Kusum Krishan Kumar suffered injuries. Yogender Parkash suffered injuries on the chest, whereas Kusum Krishan Kumar suffered injuries on mouth, forehead and left eye. Yogender Parkash was taken to Tagore Hospital. The driver of the matador fled away from the spot. Complainant stated that he is in a position to identify the driver of the matador. Yogender Parkash was referred to Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi where he died due to the injuries suffered. Complainant eye witness Pritam Singh appeared as PW4. Injured eye witness Kusum Krishan Kumar appeared as PW10. The trial Court placed reliance on their testimonies and convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC. The trial Court also held that identity of the accused is established at the spot. Petitioner was sentenced under Section 304-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court maintained the conviction and upheld the sentence. Mr.Vinay Puri, Advocate appearing for Mr.D.K.Bhatti, counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not assail the conviction in the present case, as two Courts below have found that testimonies of PW4 Pritam Singh and PW10 Kusum Krishan Kumar inspire confidence. Counsel pray that in the present case, out of the total sentence awarded, the petitioner had undergone 4 months and 12 days of actual sentence. Crl. Revision No.1083 of 2004 [3] Therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars will serve no useful purpose. It is further submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence and petitioner is ready and willing to compensate family of the deceased. This Court is of the view that 17 years is too long period for which petitioner has been in the corridors of the Court. Petitioner had already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone taking into consideration that grant of compensation shall provide solace to the family of the deceased. Thus, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already. Ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of fine, he shall undergo remaining period of sentence. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed to the family of the deceased. Subject to above modification in the order of sentence, the revision petition stand disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 15, 2010. JUDGE RC