Crl.Rev No.1546 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.1546 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sumit Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Pawan Kumar, petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 6.07.2011 passed by Sessions Judge Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siwani, convicting and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC and to further undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under section 279 IPC. The allegations in nutshell are that on 28.07.2005, Prabhu Ram along with his brother Ram Singh was going to meet Crl.Rev No.1546 of 2011 2 their married sister and daughter and reached Siwani, from where they boarded a Jeep bearing registration No.PB-13-9841. At that time their son-in-law Jagdish was also accompanying them. Besides them there were 6-7 more passengers in the jeep. When they reached near Sharma Hotel, they told the driver of the jeep to arrest its speed but he did not pay any heed to them. When they crossed Sharma Hotel, a tractor trolley bearing No.HR-20-G-1190 came from opposite direction. The petitioner while driving the jeep rashly and negligently struck against the tractor trolly, as a result of which the complainant and his brother sustained injuries. The petitioner ran away from the spot. On the aforesaid statement of Prabhu Ram, a case was registered, the accused was arrested and case was investigated. The completion of investigation was followed by the report under section 173 Cr.PC. In order to substantiate the charges under section 279 and 304-A IPC framed against the petitioner, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been urged that the petitioner is ready to compensate the injured and Crl.Rev No.1546 of 2011 3 keeping in view this fact, he has already deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac on account of compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. As such he has prayed that some leniency may be shown to him. Having heard the rival contentions, it is noticed that the petitioner has already undergone 2 months and six days of the substantive sentence. The petitioner was 19 years old at the time of accident and now he is newly married and has already deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac as ordered by the court on account of compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would be in the fitness of things if some leniency is extended to him in the matter of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to already undergone, without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, a sum of Rs.1 lac deposited by the petitioner would be treated as compensation payable to the heirs of the deceased. (A.N.Jindal) 12.09.2011 Judge rp