IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 615 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.3.2010 Gurmit Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Bikramjit Singh Pannu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.AG, Punjab. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Taran Taran. The facts of the prosecution case are that FIR No. 114 dated 31.10.2000 was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Jarnail Singh under Sections 304-A/427 IPC. The complainant has stated that his father Major Singh was crushed down by Truck No. HR-46-6794 and the whole occurrence was witnessed by him and his father died at the spot. On the basis of statement of complainant, ruqa was sent and case was registered. Post mortem of dead body was got conducted and accused was arrested by the police. Charge under Sections 304-A/427 IPC was framed against the accused. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC for two years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine RI for 30 days. Against the judgment of Crl.Revision No. 615 of 2010 [2] conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court, the petitioner filed a revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Tarn Taran, who vide judgment dated 28.11.2009 upheld the conviction of the petitioner and reduced the sentence from two years RI to one year RI. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 28.11.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Tarn Taran on the ground that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material facts and evidence produced by the petitioner. The plea taken by the petitioner that no test identification parade was conducted to link the petitioner with the offence was not accepted and there was nothing on the record to prove that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing agony of protracted trial for the last more than 9 years as the FIR was registered on 31st October, 2000. He is the only bread winner of his family and is not a past convict. Moreover the family of the deceased has already received the compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest the conviction of the petitioner and states that petitioner is ready to pay some reasonable compensation to the family of the deceased if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Mr. Sra, learned counsel for the State, has no objection in reduction of sentence if some reasonable compensation is paid. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 31.10.2000 and petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than nine years and moreover the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 3-1/2 Crl.Revision No. 615 of 2010 [3] months against the total sentence of one year. He is the sole bread winner of his family. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is partly allowed to the extent that while the petitioner's conviction under Section 304-A IPC is upheld, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/- to the family of the deceased. The said amount be deposited in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the order reducing the sentence to the period already undergone would be treated as withdrawn and petitioner would undergo the remainder part of the sentence. With above modification, the revision petition is disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 11, 2010. raghav