IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death and injury was warranted, sentencing should consider the individual circumstances of the offender, including age and duration of legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 26.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Criminal Appeal No. 09/1998 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class – Sumerpur, District Pali in Criminal Original Case No. 443/1990 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 09.05.1990, complainant – Madanlal submitted a report to the extent that he along with some of his relatives, viz., Guneshmal, Jadawi Bai, Rambha, Nainu Shanker, Fajushanker, Khuma Shanker, Sumita, Jayantilal, Pista and his villagers, viz., Pratap Luhar, Hanwant Singh Rajput were going to village Dujana from Sumerpur in a jeep bearing registration No. RJW 1817. The jeep was being driven by the present petitioner and at about 11:15 AM, when the jeep reached near temple of Jakha Mataji, a bullock cart was proceeding in front of the jeep and when the driver tried to overtake the bullock cart, the jeep collided with a truck bearing registration No. DEG 5805 which was coming from the opposite direction and fell into a fencing. Due to which Hanwant Singh, Rambha and Jadawi Bai died on the spot and Guneshmal & Nainu Shanker died during treatment. Other passengers sitting in the jeep also sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing registration No. RJW 1817, which was being driven by the accused-petitioner Ratanlal. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 338, 337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 11.08.1998 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.08.2002. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Amitabh Acharya, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1990. He had remained in jail for two months after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 27 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 61 years and is facing trial since the year 1990 and he has