IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 CRR-1071-2007 Date of decision: 27.08.2025 Chandan Singh .....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition to impugn the order dated 17.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2006 passed by learned learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, in case FIR No.107 of 1993 under Sections 279/304- A of the IPC registered at Police Station Mujessar, was dismissed. 2. Vide judgment dated 11.07.2006, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, convicted the petitioner and sentenced as under:- Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine 279 of the IPC RI for 06 months - - 304-A of the IPC RI for 1½ years Rs.1,000/- RI for 06 months 3. The case as set up by the prosecution may be noticed as thus : the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant, Shiv Ram (uncle of the deceased), who VINAY 2025.08.27 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-1071-2007 reported that on 11.05.1993 at about 9.00 pm, when her niece Rachna (deceased) aged about 02 years, was sitting on the sand for toilet in their locality, a truck bearing registration No.HYU 7776 emerged there moving in reverse gear at a very high speed and in a negligent manner driven by accused/petitioner Chandan Singh, and crushed the deceased under the rear wheel of the truck due to which the deceased died on the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, he does not intend to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits. His submission is confined solely to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the accident pertains to the year 1993, and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of about 06 months and 15 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, is a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen, and has no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to further incarceration. 5. In support of his plea, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar Lolienkar Vs. State of Goa and another : 2022(1) SCC 161, wherein it was observed that even in cases involving conviction under 304-A of the IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period VINAY 2025.08.27 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-1071-2007 already undergone. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence while drawing attention to the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, it has been submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to dispute that subsequent to the accident of the year 1993, the petitioner has maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal activity. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 8. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the accident is of the year 1993, and taking note of the fact—undisputed by the learned State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other criminal act thereafter and has otherwise been leading a disciplined and law-abiding life, it would not be appropriate to send him back to prison at this stage of life, especially when he has already borne the brunt of prolonged trial proceedings. 9. It would be apposite to advert to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar Lolienkar's case (supra) where, while dealing with conviction under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the quantum of sentence in the following terms :- “14. In the instant case, the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of the VINAY 2025.08.27 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-1071-2007 precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment.” 10. In the totality of circumstances, ends of justice would be adequately met if, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, his substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ years is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 06 months and 15 days. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 304-A of the IPC. It is made clear that in the event of non-deposit of the enhanced fine before the Trial/Successor Court within a period of two months from today, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner, and he shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him. Upon deposit of the enhanced fine, the Trial/Successor Court shall ensure that the same is released to the legal representatives of the deceased, after due notice and proper identification. 13. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence and enhancement of fine, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. 27.08.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2025.08.27 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment