IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1368 of 1999 Date of decision: 15th April, 2009 Harchand Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Harchand Singh was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Panchkula in case FIR No. 34 dated 04.11.1993 registered at Police Station Sector 19, Panchkula under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. The Court found him guilty under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the appellate Court and conviction and sentence of the appellant was maintained. In brief, prosecution case was that Kishan Singh complainant along with his nephews Jit Singh and Surinder Singh on 4th November, 1993 was going on foot to Zirakpur. At about 10.30 a.m., when he reached Criminal Revision No. 1368 of 1999 Zirakpur Barrier, Surinder Singh, his nephew, who was going ahead, was run-over by a truck bearing registration No. HR03-1415, which came from the opposite side on a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. It is stated that Surinder Singh died at the spot. The truck was being driven by petitioner Harchand Singh, who was already known to the complainant. Mr. Navkiran Singh appearing for the petitioner has stated that the Court has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-5 Jit Singh and PW-6 Kishan Singh complainant. Both are stated to be the eye-witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the plea raised by the petitioner that deceased was co-driver, has not been accepted by the two courts below. Counsel has stated that he is conscious of the fact that revisional Court cannot re-appreciate or do re-appraisal of the evidence, therefore, he will confine his prayer to reduction in sentence and payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. It has been stated that in the present case occurrence has taken place on 4th November, 1993 and petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of more than 15 years. Mr. Navkiran Singh has stated that right of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, requires that petitioner should be leniently dealt with and should not be sent behind the bars. It has further been submitted that the petitioner, at the time of occurrence, was 43 years of age and was having two daughters aged 11 years and 12 years respectively. The daughters would now be of marriageable age and in case petitioner is sent behind the bars, not only his family will suffer but the marriage prospects of his two daughters will stand eclipsed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that family of the deceased can be compensated. According to the counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has undergone 16 days. 2 Criminal Revision No. 1368 of 1999 Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana appearing for the State has submitted that there is no record with the State to show that petitioner has committed any other offence in the last 15 years. Taking into consideration submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The same be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Fine be deposited in the trial Court within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. In case fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 15, 2009 rps 3