Criminal Revision No. 2087 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2087 of 2004 Date of decision: March 11, 2010 Sukhwinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 21.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Sukhwinder Singh (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 26.2.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.5.1997, injured Surjit Singh made a statement before ASI Harinder Singh that on 28.5.1997, he along with Gulzar Singh son of Niranjan Singh was going on tractor trolley bearing registration No.PJF-2091 towards village Muaran for loading loose earth, and when he reached near Dhani Gobind Nagar Muktsar, one Balkar Singh son of Niranjan Singh was going on bicycle and in the meanwhile, the accused while driving mini bus bearing registration No.PB-4B-9896 very rashly and negligently struck against his tractor trolley towards its right side, as a result of which the tractor trolley overturned. He as well as Gulzar Singh fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Both, of them were shifted to the D.M.C. Ludhiana where injured Gulzar Singh died. On the basis of the said statement, a case FIR was registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded; rough site plan of the place of Criminal Revision No. 2087 of 2004 -2- occurrence was prepared; the accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation the accused was challaned. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about three months out of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending in the courts since then. He has already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. March 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge