The quantum of sentence for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles should be proportionate to the accusation and should consider the recklessness and negligence of the driver, as well as the need for deterrence.

1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 123/1993, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 09.12.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, district Udaipur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 426/1986, was dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was maintained.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Carefully gone through the judgments and orders passed by both the courts below, as also the record of the trial Court.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is of the year 1982 and almost 27 years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence; the petitioner has suffered the imprisonment for one month during pendency of the revision petition and, therefore, without challenging the conviction of the petitioner, submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Raju v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 385 ; Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, (1973) 2 SCC 203 ; and Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi), (1976) 4 SCC 512 .

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order and contended that due to recklessness and negligence of the petitioner while driving the truck, the life of two persons have been taken away and the another person got injured; the trial Court has already taken a lenient view in awarding the lesser sentence of six months only and that is how the Appellate Court did not interfere with the judgment and order of the trial Court and as such further reduction in the sentence is not warranted.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. On a careful perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that PW 4 Nand Lal S/o Bagad Ram lodged a report with the Police Station, Kheroda on 29.7.1982 stating therein that at about 10:00 A.M., on collision of a truck bearing No. RSQ 4839 with a scooter bearing No. RSY 3172, two persons suffered injuries and died on the spot and, therefore, the matter may be investigated. The police ensued the investigation and prima facie found that it was the petitioner, who drove the truck rashly and negligently and hit the scooter No. RSY 3172 resulting thereby that two persons succumbed to the injuries instantaneously and the third person suffered injuries. The site map and site inspection note were prepared, which have been proved by the investigating officer. At the time of inspection of the site, it appeared that the said truck driven by the petitioner hit the scooter and dragged it for about ten feet and thereafter the truck could be stopped after covering the distance of ten to twelve feet. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that due to recklessness, rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner, two persons, namely Rajendra and Hemant succumbed to the injuries instantaneous. On appeal, the Appellate Court did not find any error or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was justified in not challenging the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the trial court and maintained by the Appellate Court.

7. So far as the qua