IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 552 of 2003 Date of Decision : February 26, 2010 Ram Kishan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC on the allegations that on 28.4.1996 at about 5.45 A.M., he, while driving Tata four wheeler rashly and negligently and at a high speed, hit a Maruti van as a result of which some of the occupants of the Maruti van received injuries and one of them, namely, Naresh, later on, succumbed to his injuries. Vide judgment and order dated 6.10.1999, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bahadurgarh convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. No separate sentence was, however, awarded for the offence under Section 279 IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No. 552 of 2003 -2- Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar on 30.1.2003 by maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and he was ordered to be taken in custody for spending the remaining period of sentence. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 13.3.2003 when notice regarding suspension of sentence was issued. It was on 26.5.2003 when the sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. However, he states that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since June, 1996. He has been sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment for one year. Out of the same, he has already undergone a period of about four months, as he was taken in custody on 30.1.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal and was granted the concession of bail by this Court on 26.5.2003. The petitioner is the only bread winner for his family, which consist of his children and old parents. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that as the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, a number of persons had received injuries. Moreover, road accidents are on the increase and one feels unsafe while moving on the road. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve leniency in the matter of sentence. Criminal Revision No. 552 of 2003 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the legal heirs of Naresh-deceased as compensation. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial Court alongwith its default clause is maintained. In addition, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The said amount be deposited with the trial Court within three months from today. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, he shall be required to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Courts below. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 26, 2010 JUDGE satish