1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1641 of 2009. Date of Decision: 7.7.2009 *** Ram Chander .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgments passed by the Courts below. The petitioner was tried for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code with the allegations that on 24.5.2001 he drove vehicle No. HP20-7853 rashly and negligently and caused accident resulting into the death of one Suresh son of Brij Lal. On conclusion of trial, the trial court found the charges proved against the petitioner and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.800/- under Section 304-A IPC while sentence of three months and fine of Rs.200/- was awarded to him under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 15 days was awarded to the petitioner. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Fine is stated to have been paid by the convict before the trial court. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the appellate Court below modified the sentence awarded under Section 304-A IPC by reducing the same to the period of 6 months. Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the 2 prosecution in the shape of eye witnesses i.e. PW.4 and PW.5 coupled with that of investigating officer and medical expert, to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. It can also be not forgotten that the scope to interfere with the concurrent findings, by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below leaves no manner of doubt that the accident in question was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, as a result whereof one innocent person lost his life. Furthermore, the appellate Court below has already took a lenient view towards the petitioner by reducing his sentence from one year to six months, keeping in view his antecedents. There is no merit in the instant revision, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 7,2009 Jiten