Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) PARGAT Singh has filed the instant revision petition to assail the judgments passed by the trial Court and appellate Court in regard to his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
(2.) THE findings recorded by the Courts below in regard to conviction of the petitioner were affirmed on July 04, 2013. Notice of motion was issued to hear the parties on quantum of sentence only. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already suffered custody for a period of 1 year and about 3 months out of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. He has faced pangs of criminal proceedings for the past over 12 years. The petitioner has a large family consisting of his wife and three grown up daughters aged 23, 20 and 17 years respectively. The legal representatives of the deceased have already obtained compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act but the petitioner is ready to pay some reasonable compensation to them. It is argued with vehemence that in case the sentence awarded by the Courts below is affirmed, the petitioner may lose his job, causing a serious financial set back to his family which would further adversely impact matrimonial prospects of his grown up daughters. It is prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner may be released giving benefit of probation. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgments of this Court wherein benefit of probation has been allowed to the convicts for offence under Section 304A IPC, Tejwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, : 2009(5) RCR (Criminal), 526 and Sudh Ram Vs. State of Punjab, : 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550.
(3.) COUNSEL representing State of Punjab as well as complainant have not disputed the plea of the petitioner in regard to period of incarceration as well as members of his family. However, it is submitted that keeping in view gravity of situation that three persons died in the occurrence, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of this Court.;