1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1109 of 2000 Date of Decision: 26.8.2010 *** Dharambir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajive Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind for an offence under Section 279, 304-A IPC with the allegations that on 27.1.1992 he drove tractor bearing registration No. HRJ3422 rashly and negligently and caused accident by striking against motor cycle bearing No. UMY-6768, as a result of which the driver as well as pillion rider namely Sri Om and Sunil Kumar received injuries and lateron succumbed thereto. During trial the prosecution produced as many as six witnesses including PW3 complainant Mohinder Singh. Though the case of the accused was of denial, but the learned trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence on record, convicted the accused under Sections 279 read with 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for one month was provided. It has further been directed that the fine, if recovered, be paid to the next kins of deceased Sri Om and Sunil Kumar in equal sharers. The appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 2 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched the merits of the case and has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has underwent the agony of protracted trial and thereafter of appeal for more than 18 years and has remained in jail for about 18 days in relation to the present case. It has further been contended that the petitioner has not committed any other offence, before or after the present occurrence. Thus, his release on probation has been sought. Undisputedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 1992 and since then the petitioner has suffered agony of trial as well as the appeal before the appellate Court below. There is nothing which is suggestive of the fact that after his release on bail, the present petitioner had acted in a manner prejudicial to law and order or that he is again found involved in similar type of offence. But, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that due to fault of the accused two innocent persons have lost their life, thereby increased the sufferings of families of both of them. Therefore, it will not be in the fitness of things to grant probation to the appellant. That apart, the undergone period is not in consonance with the gravity of the offence which he has committed, but the sentence can be reduced, keeping in view the antecedents of the appellant. For the discussion above, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained, however, his sentence is reduced to the period of nine months. The sentence of fine is also maintained. The petitioner who is on bail, shall surrender before the CJM concerned forthwith to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, failing which his warrants of arrest be issued by the CJM concerned. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of CJM concerned forthwith. With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 26,2010 Jiten