IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

251 Date of decision: 17.11.2025 BIR SINGH .........Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Deepanshu Grover, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the appellant.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Pranav Arora, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for respondent No.2-complainant.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral)

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal in case bearing FIR No.81 dated 07.03.2010 registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC at Police Station, Hodal, District Palwal as well as against the judgment dated

04.08.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal, has been dismissed. The petitioner has been sentenced as under:-

2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that on

07.03.2010, a telephonic information was received from Taj Bhattha Sevli that a boy Rahul, aged about 13-14 years, had expired in an accident. The concerned officials reached Taj Bhattha Sevli and recorded the statement of the complainant Udai Singh. According to the version given by Udai Singh, at about 12:30 PM, his son Rahul had been bringing drinking water for him from the Jhuggi. However, one Tractor filled with Reti, negligently came at a high speed, struck his son Rahul from behind and as a result thereof, Rahul got pinned down under the tyre of the Tractor and passed away on the spot. Subsequently, the driver (petitioner herein) was apprehended and an FIR was registered against him. After completion of all other necessary formalities of investigation, a challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court.

3. On completion of the procedural compliances, the parties led their respective evidence. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the following six witnesses and closed its evidence:

The entire evidence was put to the petitioner and his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the charges but led no evidence in defence.

4. After hearing the arguments by the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal, convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 03.12.2015 and sentenced him for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Appeal against the judgment of conviction & sentence was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Palwal vide judgment dated

04.08.2016. Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not wish to challenge the conviction and confines his prayer only to the quantum of sentence. Hence, the factual matrix and merits of the case are not being examined at this stage. He submits that the present matter pertains to the year 2010 and that no other criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the incident occurred in 2010 and that the petitioner has faced the agony of a protracted trial for nearly 15 years. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the custody period already undergone.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as Mr. Pranav Arora, Advocate, the Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the respondent-complainant, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and argued that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during the trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for the imposition of a stringent sentence. The counsel submit that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to