IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while accountability for negligent driving resulting in injury and death is crucial, mitigating factors such as age, social status, and the duration of legal proceedings can warrant a reduction in sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.21/2011 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.306/2011 (Old case No.03/99) 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 19.11.1998, complainant – Rajendra Singh submitted a report at Police Station Fuliya Kalan to the extent that he is a sugar dealer and on 19.11.1998, at about 4 PM he was carrying sugar & salt bags in a truck bearing registration No.RJ01-G-3845, 709. The truck was being driven by the present petitioner Goru Lal and the complainant along with Gokal & Kalyan was sitting in the front cabin of truck and some other persons viz., Gopi, Bhura, Chhitar, Ramchandra, Ramkaran, Heera, Ramswaroop, Sohan, Ranjeet, etc. were sitting on the bags kept at the back side of truck. When they reached near Doi ka Khera the truck overturned, due to which all the persons got injured and during treatment, Surajkaran and Ramswaroop died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner Goru Lal. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 21 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, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 02.11.2011 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 24.05.2014. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Devam Maheshwari, 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 1998. He had remained in jail for about nine days 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 45 years old at the time of incident, now he is aged about 69 years and is facing trial since the year 1998 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 nine days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.

7. Since the revision petition against c