Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Man Mohan Kumar son of Hukam Chand, aged 24 years, was named as accused in case FIR No.1 dated 1.1.1995 registered at Police Station Mani majra, Chandigarh, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 2. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, found petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Sec.304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Sec.279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, petitioner filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. 3. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 31.12.1994. FIR was lodged by Balbir Kaur wife of Gurmeet Singh. She stated that on 31.12.1994 she along with her daughter Sukhjinder Kaur, aged eight years, was coming from manimajra Housing Board Complex. They both were coming on foot. It was about 8.00 P. M. , suddenly a young man, aged 21/22 years, came on the Scooter. The scooter was at a very high speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The scooter hit her daughter on the back, her daughter fell down and suffered injuries on her head. Complainant took her daughter to dispensary in Sector 6, panchkula, from where the patient was referred to PGI. Complainant, when reached with the injured at PGI, her daughter Sukhjinder Kaur, aged eight years, was declared dead. Complainant made a grievance that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 4. Prosecution examined Balbir Kaur, complainant, as PW.1, Gurmeet Singh as PW.2, Devinder Mohan as PW.3, Gurmukh Singh as PW.4, Ranbir Singh, Head constable, as PW.5, Ram Chander as PW.6, Dr. Jagjiv Kumar Sharma as PW.7, Dr. Ashraj as PW.8, Ravi Sher Singh as PW.9 and Bans Raj, Sub Inspector, as PW.10. Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Prosecution examined Balbir Kaur, complainant, as PW.1, Gurmeet Singh as PW.2, Devinder Mohan as PW.3, Gurmukh Singh as PW.4, Ranbir Singh, Head constable, as PW.5, Ram Chander as PW.6, Dr. Jagjiv Kumar Sharma as PW.7, Dr. Ashraj as PW.8, Ravi Sher Singh as PW.9 and Bans Raj, Sub Inspector, as PW.10. Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly stated that he is conscious that a revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses especially when two Courts below have come to conclusion that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, accident had occurred. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except to point discrepancies, contradictions and improvements, there is nothing in his arsenal. However, counsel has submitted that during the pendency of the case, a compromise was arrived between the family of the accused and family of the deceased. Along with the paper book of this revision petition, affidavit of Balbir Kaur, complainant, has been placed as Annexure p1. In the affidavit, it has been stated that complainant had compromised with the accused and does not want to proceed against the accused Man Mohan Kumar. Affidavit of Vidyawati, mother of the accused has also been placed as Annexure p2. In the same, it is stated that she is 56 years old widow and having three daughters and one of her daughter is of marriageable age. Affidavit of Kiran sharma, wife of petitioner, has also been annexed in which it is stated that she had given birth to female child on 15.8.2000. Another affidavit of Rajesh kumari, aged 26 years, was attached as Annexure P4, to say that Man Mohan Kumar is only male member of the family and a sole bread earner. Counsel has further submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1994. A period of more than 15 years is going to elapse. Mother, wife and children of petitioner are dependent upon him. Counsel further submitted that the complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner and has reconciled to the death of her daughter which was a result of accident and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that at the time of compromise, family of the complainant was compensated. Counsel further submitted that the complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner and has reconciled to the death of her daughter which was a result of accident and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that at the time of compromise, family of the complainant was compensated. Counsel further submitted that petitioner is still ready and willing to compensate the family of the complainant. 5. I have considered all the above said submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Petitioner has undergone about 17 days of his actual sentence. He has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for a period of more than 15 years. The complainant has already compromised and, as stated earlier, has been compensated. This Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars after 15 years especially when petitioner is willing to compensate the family of the complainant. Petitioner behind the bars may not serve any purpose, at present, as amount of compensation may provide some solace to the complainant, who had already effected a compromise. 7. In these circumstances, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order, in the trial Court and the same shall be disbursed to the complainant. However, in case, fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. 8. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.