IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2025 of 2003 Date of Decision 09.09.2010 Sarabjit Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.B.S.Saroha, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 13.06.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 02.09.2002, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. However, in appeal, the sentence awarded under Section 279 IPC was set aside. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 04.05.1997, he while driving the vehicle i.e. DCM Toyota bearing registration No.DL-IL- 6834, rashly and negligently, struck against the scooter of Prem Singh, as a result of which he suffered injuries and died whereas Varinder Kumar received injuries. Case was registered against him and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed except that he was acquitted under Section 279 IPC. Criminal Revision No.2025 of 2003 -2- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was pointed out which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, no exception could be made to the opinion expressed by the Courts below regarding conviction. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to the protracted proceedings pending for the last 13 years. He has already undergone about five months of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. The petitioner is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of Prem Singh, within three months from today, failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim the remuneration from the competent authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 09.09.2010 mamta-II