JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral):- The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 13.02.2012 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Jind dismissing appeal filed by petitioner-accused against judgment of conviction dated 05.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 07.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak vide which petitioner-accused was convicted for offences under Sections 279/337/304A IPC and sentenced as under:- Under Section 279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of non-payment of fine, convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 337 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of non-payment of fine, convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 304A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. 4. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that, on 10.12.2008 Deepak (deceased) alongwith his wife Parmila (deceased) and son Kamal (deceased) aged two years, was going on his motorcycle make Yamaha. They were being followed by complainant -Virender @Kala. When the motorcycle of Deepak reached ahead of his motorcycle near the link road of village Brah Khurd, an Indica car bearing registration no. DL-4CM-2213 being driven by present petitioner-accused in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed, which hit directly against the motorcycle being driven by Deepak as a result of which all of them fell down and sustained injuries. All the three injured were removed to the hospital at Jind for treatment. Petitioner-accused was under the influence of liquor and he had also sustained injuries. The car had fallen in the ditch as the same was being driven at a very high speed by petitioner-accused. Kamal was declared dead in the hospital. Deepak also succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Later on, wife of Deepak, namely, Parmila also succumbed to the injuries in the PGIMS, Rohtak. 5. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against petitioner-accused, who faced trial. Kamal was declared dead in the hospital. Deepak also succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Later on, wife of Deepak, namely, Parmila also succumbed to the injuries in the PGIMS, Rohtak. 5. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against petitioner-accused, who faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial court as aforementioned. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the present revision petition against judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below. Identity of petitioner-accused driving the offending vehicle has been duly established. He had also sustained injuries and remained admitted in the hospital. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment passed by learned trial court convicting petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279/337/304A IPC and as affirmed by learned appellate court. 7. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. 8. However, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he is not previous convict and that he is a poor person and has to look after a big family as he is sole bread-winner of the family. It is further contended that he has been facing agony of trial since the year 2009 i.e. for the last more than four years. It is also contended that he has already undergone more than one year and three months of the sentence out of two years awarded. Hence, it is contended that he deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. 9. The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State. 10. Hence, taking into consideration all these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted. Hence, it is contended that he deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. 9. The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State. 10. Hence, taking into consideration all these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the period of imprisonment of two years for offence under Section 304A IPC is reduced to one year and six months while maintaining the other sentences. 11. Disposed of accordingly. --------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————