IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of negligence leading to death, the sentence can be adjusted based on the defendant's personal circumstances and the duration of the 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 06.06.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.40/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.11.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class Jalore in Criminal Case No.325/1996 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 15.07.1996, complainant – Vachnaram submitted a report to the extent that his son Tejaram aged about 7 years went to the school situated at Mohan Ji Ki Pyau in the morning. At about 11 AM, he was standing outside the school for returning to Jalore, thereafter he went to Pyau for drinking water and when he was coming back, a bus coming at very high speed from Jalore hit him. Due to which Tejaram fell down and died on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.RJ24-P-0351, which was being driven by the accused-petitioner Shyam Singh. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 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 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 19.11.1998 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 06.06.2002. 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 1996. He had remained in jail for about 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 36 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 62 years and is facing trial since the year 1996 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about two months and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.

7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interf