RAM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part 11), Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five yearsT rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, His father Ram Din co-accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Hence this appeal by the convict against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) Mr. R S. Cheema, karned counsel for the appellant, has not addressedo!1 merits, but canvassed that the appellant is a poor person and a labourer from Uttar Pradesh that the occurrence took place all of a sudden, that he is on bail and has undergone more than a year of his substantive sentence and that the sentence may be reduced.

(3.) I have perused the record. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant is a previous convict. There is also nothing against his character and antecedents. He is a labourer and had come from Uttar Pradesh. The deceased was also a labourer from Uttar Pradesh. He is on bail. He has undergone about one year and one month of his substantive sentence. In my view, ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone and the sentence of fine is Tenhanced to Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) or in default of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is ordered accordingly. Fine, if realized, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of Shiv Lal deceased, who be informed.