The court considered the period already undergone by the petitioner and reduced the substantive sentence, emphasizing the importance of compensating the legal heirs of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner was tried for committing the offences under Sections 283, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, SBS Nagar, while acquitting the petitioner of the charges under Section 337 and 338 IPC, found him guilty for the offences under Sections 283 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one week, whereas under Section 283 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- only and, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one day.

2. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, SBS, Nagar. However, vide judgment dated 17.4.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

3. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

4. As would emerge from the facts of the case, the FIR in this case was registered on the statement of complainant-Ashok Kumar, stating therein that he had been working as a driver of canter bearing Registration No. PB-090G-9609 belonging to Choice Agro Private Limited, Kapurthala, for the five years past; that on the night of 8.11.2008, when he along with the Cleaner Varinder Kumar, was coming from Kapurthala, then at about 2.00 a.m., in the area of village Jadli, a truck canter bearing Registration No. HR-01-GA-0669 going ahead of them, had suddenly stopped due to which the canter being driven by the complainant struck with the said truck from the rear side; that as a result of the accident, he had suffered multiple injuries; that Varinder Kumar also suffered serious injuries and he died on the spot itself; the complainant was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Nawanshar; that post mortem of Varinder Kumar was conducted and that the Investigating Officer reached the spot and had also taken both the vehicles into his possession and that the accused was arrested on 10.11.2008. It was thus, alleged that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, being the driver of the offending truck.

5. On the basis of the evidence led, it stood proved before the learned trial Court that on account of the rash and negligent driving of petitioner-Jaswant Singh, death of Varinder Kumar took place and the complainant had also suffered multiple injuries. The factum of death on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner having been proved on case, the learned trial Court, as noticed above, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, accordingly. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court.

6. At the very outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, while confining his prayer to the quantum of sentence, submitted that the FIR in this case was registered on 9.11.2008 and that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the last 10 years and that by now, the petitioner has already undergone a period of 4 months 27 days out of the total sentence of one year. It is, thus, submitted that the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.

7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has, while controverting the aforesaid submissions, argued that as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident in question took place in which death of Varinder Kumar, took place and apart from the said fact, the complainant had suffered serious injuries. The learned State Counsel has further argued that both the Courts below, have appreciated the evidence and facts on record in the right perspective and hence, the findings recorded by the Courts below do n