Criminal Revision No.539 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.539 of 2003 Date of decision: 10.02.2010 Jhaman Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL. Present: Mr.P.S. Hundal, Advocate,for Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana ***** A.N. JINDAL J. 1 The accused petitioner (herein referred as the accused) was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, vide judgment dated 04.06.1999 by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad. His appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31.01.2003 passed by Additional Session Judge, Fatehabad. Consequently he is in revision. 2. In short the facts are that on 30.12.1993 at about 8.30 P.M. Swaran Singh complainant (herein referred as the complainant) along with Sita Ram was going to village Ayalki from Fatehabad on Criminal Revision No.539 of 2003 -2- the motor cycle owned by Sita Ram. Manjit Singh deceased, brother of the complainant was going on another motor cycle bearing No.HNT-6115 ahead of them. When they reached 1 ½ KMs ahead of Fatehabad towards village Ayalki, the accused while driving a fitter- cart rashly and negligently came from the wrong side and struck into the motor cycle of Manjit Singh, resultantly he fell down and died on the spot whereas the accused fled away, FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded by the police on the statement of Swaran Singh an eye-witness to the occurrence.Ishwar Singh, ASI conducted the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the same, submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. The accused was charged under Section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined seven witnesses in all besides some documents. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. It was further explained that the eye-witness being interested is not reliable. 6. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. 7. At the very outset the learned counsel without challenging the judgment of conviction has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. 8. The accident in this case took place on 30.12.1993, as such the petitioner has been facing the proceedings pending in the Courts Criminal Revision No.539 of 2003 -3- for the last 17 years. He has also undergone more than 2 months of the substantive sentence and has offered to compensate the accused over and above the compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar on 08.08.1985 to the heirs of the deceased as such ends of justice would be met if some leniency in the sentence is shown to the petitioner by adding some more amount of compensation. 9. In the peculiar circumstance of the case, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without alteration in the sentence of fine. However the petitioner would further pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased on account of compensation over and above the amount as awarded by the tribunal within 3 months from today failing which the amount shall be recovered as fine from the accused. 10. Copy of the order be sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad for compliance. 10.02.2010 (A.N. JINDAL) sonika JUDGE