The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing justice and the petitioner's age and 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 27.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No. 3 Udaipur Camp Salumber, in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.03.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kherwada, District Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No. 54/1993 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 26.11.1992, complainant Dhanraj Patel gave an oral report to the concerned Police Station to the effect that today at about 12 PM, his cousin Kala Patel was going to Kherwara from his home. When he reached near Phalasiya bridge, a Jeep bearing No. GUZ-7419 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit his cousin. As a result of which, Kala Patel sustained multiple severe injuries and subsequently died during the treatment. The said truck was being driven by the accused petitioner Baboo 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 6 witnesses were examined and 12 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 01.03.2000 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 27.10.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Shambhoo Singh, 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 1992. He had remained in jail for fourteen 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 34 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 65 years and is facing trial since the year 1993 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 quest