IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 597 of 1997 Date of Decision : March 17, 2010 Bir Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate Ms.Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the allegations that on 5.4.1991 at about 10.30 A.M., he drove truck bearing registration No.HRP-5361 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it struck Hem Raj, who sustained injuries on his head, left leg, hand and other parts of the body, which ultimately proved fatal. Vide judgment and order dated 8.8.1996, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC only and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1½ months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Criminal Revision No. 597 of 1997 -2- Sessions Judge(V), Faridabad on 9.7.1997. The petitioner then filed the present revision which was admitted on 18.7.1997 and he was granted the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. However, according to her, the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since April, 1991. The revision has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 12½ years. The petitioner is not a previous convict. He is the only bread earner of his family which consists of his wife and two children. Therefore, the petitioner be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence of imprisonment. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, one innocent person, namely, Hem Raj lost his life and, therefore, no concession be shown to him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is a fact that the occurrence in question had taken place on 5.4.1991. Ever since then the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. As is clear from the custody certificate, upon dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court, the petitioner was taken into custody on 9.7.1997 and remained in jail for a period of 11 days before he was released on bail by this Court. When the petitioner was heard by the learned trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was sole bread earner for his family, and also, he Criminal Revision No. 597 of 1997 -3- was not a previous convict. A period of more than 12½ years has elapsed since the release of the petitioner from jail, though on bail. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is maintained. However, his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced from six months to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.2000/- imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, in default thereof, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall pay the enhanced amount of fine within three months from today. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 17, 2010 JUDGE satish