JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.7.1998 of his conviction and sentence passed by Shri G.S. Dhiman, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in appeal in the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 16.12.1995 Dalip Kumar had gone to take meals at New Vijay Dhaba situated on Bye-pass, Jalandhar. Harpal Singh, PW, was also taking meals there. At about 3.20 P.M. Harpal Singh and Dalip Kumar came out of Dhaba. In the meantime, a four wheeler No. PCN-9143 Swaraj Mazda came from the side of Focal Point towards Amritsar road, Bye-Pass at a high speed and hit againt Pushpa, Mamta, Manju, Happy and Neelu who were standing on the Kacha portion of the road towards New Vijay Dhaba. The driver brought the four wheeler on the wrong side and hit the above said persons who were injured. He and Harpal Singh took them to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where Mamta was declared dead. Accused Ajit Singh was found driving the four wheeler. He ran from the spot after parking the four wheeler. The doctor informed the police about the arrival of the injured. ASI Bant Singh reached the Civil Hospital. However, the doctor opined that Smt. Neelu was unfit to give statement. Dalip Kumar, PW, met him and he recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A and sent the same to the Police Station alongwith his endorsement Ex. PW4/A/1 where on its basis formal FIR Ex. 4/C was recorded and the dead body of Mamta was sent for post mortem examination. He then went to the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. 4/D after the inspection of the spot. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and took the four wheeler into possession vide memo Ex. 4/E and arrested the petitioner and took the registeration papers of the four wheeler which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. 4/G. He also got the four wheeler mechanically tested. After the completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. At the commencement of the trial, the accused was charged under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. 4/G. He also got the four wheeler mechanically tested. After the completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. At the commencement of the trial, the accused was charged under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined PW1-Dr.G.S. Toor, EMO, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, PW2-Harpal Singh, PW3-Constable Desu Ram, PW4-ASI Bent Singh, PW5-Smt. Puspa, PW6-Manju and PW7 Dr. Gurpal Singh and after tendering into evidence certain documents closed its evidence. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was offered an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, but he did not do so. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the incident had taken place in the year 1995 and a minor child namely Mamta of two months died in the accident when four wheeler driven by the petitioner hit againt Pushpa, Mamta, Manju, Happy and Neelu who were standing on the kacha portion of the road towards New Vijay Dhaba. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no enmity and it was mishappening and accused had already undergone more than about two months of rigorous imprisonment and his sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. 8. Learned State counsel contends that though there was no enmity, in this case a minor of two months had died. Therefore, the sentence may not be reduced to the already undergone. 9. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. But keeping in view that it was only a mishappening and there was no enmity and it will not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner now again to undergo remaining period of imprisonment for a mishappening which took place in the year 1995. So, in the interest of justice, I reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is upheld. Hence the appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Order accordingly.