IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to time served, emphasizing justice and the petitioner's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 10.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2003 (72/2002) whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanod District Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 19/1992 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:

2. Both 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 21.12.1991, Constable Kailash Singh submitted a report at PS Bhinder to the effect that today at about 6:45 PM, near Chandralok Takiz, a Tanker bearing No. RJH-3761 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit a bicycle rider namely Satyanarayan. As a result of which, the said bicycle rider sustained multiple severe injuries. He was taken to hospital, where he died during the treatment. The said truck was being driven by the accused petitioner Nathu Lal. Upon the aforesaid report, 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, 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 15 witnesses were examined. 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 30.07.2002 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 10.09.2003. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Suresh Shrimali, 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 1991. He had remained in jail for about one and half 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 34 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 66 years and is facing trial since the year 1992 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 fourteen days 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 interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing