IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 Date of decision: 26.08.2025 Kulwant Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J .

1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition to impugn the order dated 03.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur in case FIR No.189 of 2000 under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC registered at Police Station Phillaur, was dismissed.

2. Vide judgment dated 21.08.2007, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

3. The case as set up by the prosecution may be noticed as thus :

4. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a statement made by the complainant, Gurjit Singh (son of the deceased), who reported that on 09.10.2000 at about 1.30 pm, he along with his father Bachan Singh (deceased), had halted at a dhaba to board a bus for Amritsar. While his father was crossing the road, a bus bearing registration No.PB-03-E-9600, coming from the wrong side and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck him. The impact caused fatal injuries, and Bachan Singh succumbed to them on the spot.

5. 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 2007, and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of about 10 months. 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.

6. 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 already undergone.

7. 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 2007, the petitioner has maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal activity.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

9. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the accident is of the year 2007, 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.

10. It would be apposite to advert to the obs